2012 (8) TMI 817 - AT - Service Tax

Plea against dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) on the point of limitation by observing that the same stands filed after normal period of limitation as also after the condonable period of 30 days - Held that - Issue is well settled that Commissioner(Appeals) has no jurisdiction to condone any delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days. On assessee contention that order dated 18.06.08 was served to him on 30.10.10 it is held that it is found that Revenue has placed documentary evidences showing receipt of adjudication order by Shri Virendra Yadav at appellant s residence. As per para 47(2) of Adjudication Manual, the service of orders through local range offices is an approved mode of service. Also, Asstt. Commissioner in his reply dated 26.10.10 to assessee s letter dated 25.09.10 has clearly mentioned that adjudication order was served on 18.06.08. It is only the photocopy of the adjudication order which again stands supplied to the appellant. As such the service of the photocopy of the adjudication order for the second time cannot be taken as relevant date of receipt of the order for the purposes of limitation - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on the point of limitation by the Commissioner(Appeals).
2. Dispute regarding the date of receipt of the impugned order.
3. Validity of service of the adjudication order.
4. Interpretation of Section 37C regarding service on the authorized representative.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, noting that the appeal was filed after the normal period of limitation and the condonable period of 30 days had passed. The impugned order was passed on 19.05.08, and the appeal was filed on 03.12.10, leading to the dismissal based on the limitation issue.

2. The appellant claimed that they did not receive the impugned order dated 19.05.08 until the Revenue came for recovery of dues. They requested a copy of the order on 25.09.10 and received it on 30.10.10. The Revenue argued that the order was served on 18.06.08, supported by an acknowledgment receipt. The Tribunal had to determine the actual date of receipt of the impugned order to decide on the limitation issue.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the Revenue had proof of the adjudication order being served personally at the appellant's address on 18.06.08. The appellant's contention that the date of receipt should be considered as 30.10.10 was rejected as the service was properly documented and in accordance with the Adjudication Manual.

4. Regarding the service on the authorized representative, the appellant argued that the person who received the order was not authorized. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that since the appellant was not a registered service tax payer and had not specified an authorized representative, service at the residential address was valid. The appellant failed to prove that the person receiving the order was not authorized.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on the limitation issue, as the impugned order was deemed to have been properly served within the prescribed time frame. The arguments regarding the authorized representative were also dismissed, as the service at the residential address was considered valid in the absence of a specified representative.