https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54657 Where service of an adjudication order is disputed, mere despatch by registered post does not by itself establish communication; the presumption of delivery remains rebuttable and must be supported by reliable proof of actual service. On the facts, the department could not produce the signed acknowledgement card or other convincing evidence of delivery before 17-3-2001, while the assessee consistently denied receipt and supported that stand by correspondence and affidavit. The appeal filed on 4-5-2001 was therefore within limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the appeal was not time-barred and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:33:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54657 Where service of an adjudication order is disputed, mere despatch by registered post does not by itself establish communication; the presumption of delivery remains rebuttable and must be supported by reliable proof of actual service. On the facts, the department could not produce the signed acknowledgement card or other convincing evidence of delivery before 17-3-2001, while the assessee consistently denied receipt and supported that stand by correspondence and affidavit. The appeal filed on 4-5-2001 was therefore within limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the appeal was not time-barred and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54657