Limitation for appeal requires valid service of the adjudication order; presumed delivery failed when sent to the wrong address.

Limitation for filing the appeal depended on valid communication of the adjudication order, and service at an incomplete or incorrect address could not establish commencement of the limitation period. The record showed that the appellant had a different registered address in Surat, while the show cause notice and order in original were not dispatched to that correct address; the presumptions under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act were rebutted on the facts. The dismissal of the appeal as time barred was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation on the footing that the order in original had been duly communicated to the appellant at the correct address.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the date and mode of service of the order in original. The record showed that the appellant had a different registered address in Surat, while the show cause notice and adjudication order were sent to an incomplete or incorrect address. The appellate authority's reliance on presumed service through speed post was found unsupported by evidence of dispatch to the correct registered address. The statutory limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 depends on communication of the order, and the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 remained rebutted on the facts.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as time barred was unsustainable, and the matter had to be sent back for decision on merits.

---