https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467487 Tribunal analysed service under Section 37C requiring speed post with proof of delivery and found postal records showed delivery only to a government building, not to the appellant. In absence of statutory proof of service and given the appellant's evidence of actual receipt on 30/31.10.2022, limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act was reckoned from actual receipt. The appeal filed on 22.12.2022 was therefore within time. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing as time barred; the appeal is allowed and remitted for decision on merits within three months. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Mar 2026 15:12:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467487 Tribunal analysed service under Section 37C requiring speed post with proof of delivery and found postal records showed delivery only to a government building, not to the appellant. In absence of statutory proof of service and given the appellant's evidence of actual receipt on 30/31.10.2022, limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act was reckoned from actual receipt. The appeal filed on 22.12.2022 was therefore within time. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing as time barred; the appeal is allowed and remitted for decision on merits within three months. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467487