Proof of proper service determines appeal limitation; mere dispatch may not start the statutory appeal period.

Limitation for an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 depends on valid service of the Order-in-Original in the manner required by Section 83 of that Act read with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The notes state that inconsistent records regarding dispatch and return of registered post, without acknowledgment or proof of actual delivery, do not establish proper service. The admitted date of receipt is therefore treated as the relevant date for computing limitation. Filing beyond the initial two-month period may remain permissible where it falls within the further one-month condonable period, subject to the statutory conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rightly rejected as time-barred when the department lacked proof of proper service of the Order-in-Original and the assessee asserted receipt only on 11.03.2024.

Analysis: The limitation question was examined with reference to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the mode of service contemplated through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The record showed inconsistency in the appellate authority's findings regarding dispatch and return of the registered post containing the Order-in-Original. The material on record did not establish proof of actual delivery to the assessee. In the absence of proof of acknowledgment or proper receipt, mere dispatch could not be treated as valid service. On that basis, the date on which a copy of the order was admittedly provided to the assessee, namely 11.03.2024, was treated as the relevant date of receipt for computing limitation. Since the appeal was filed on 16.05.2024, it was beyond the initial two-month period but within the further condonable period of one month.

Conclusion: The appeal was within limitation and the rejection on the ground of limitation was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---