Proof of service is essential to trigger limitation; without it, a time-bar dismissal cannot stand and merits must be heard.

Absence of proof of service of the enforcement order meant limitation could not be invoked against the appellants, because the record did not verify receipt of the acknowledgment due card or any official service of the order. Applying the principle that substantial justice prevails over technical objections, the time-bar dismissal was unsustainable. The dismissal on limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits after affording the appellants a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustainable in the absence of proof of service of the enforcement order.

Analysis: The record did not show receipt of the acknowledgment due card by the postal authorities, and the departmental communication indicated that service of the enforcement order could not be verified from the official record. In these circumstances, there was no evidence that the order had been served on the appellants so as to trigger limitation. Applying the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections, the finding of time-bar could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The dismissal on limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits after affording personal hearing to the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of securing a remand for fresh adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service of the order is not proved, limitation cannot be enforced against the appellant, and the dispute must be decided on merits rather than being rejected on a technical ground.

---