2012 (11) TMI 699 - AT - Service Tax

Service of adjudication order - Held that - Sending the order at correct address by registered post is a sufficient compliance of section 37-C of Central Excise Act 1944 and it is for the assessee to rebut the presumption of service by cogent evidence that in fact order was never served upon him. The appellant in the present appeal in hand failed to discharge its burden of proof - this is a case of service on any authorized person nor the case of closure of factory nor the case of rebuttal of presumption of by appellant - both stay application and appeal fail to succeed. Accordingly both are dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Validity of service of adjudication order and demand of service tax.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the validity of the service of the adjudication order and the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,10,774. The appellant contended that the finding in the appellate order regarding the service of the adjudication order was baseless as there was no authorized person to receive it. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue officer had taken appropriate steps to serve the order, and there was no apparent laxity on the part of the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal observed that the registered letter was addressed correctly, and its delivery was confirmed by the postal department, establishing the bona fide actions of the Revenue officer.

Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the judgments cited by the appellant, such as the Allahabad High Court case of R.K. Agarwal v. CESTAT and the Calcutta High Court case of Matigara Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd v. CCE. In the R.K. Agarwal case, it was noted that the petitioner had not authorized anyone to receive the order, unlike the present case where the appellant had an opportunity to do so. The Tribunal also distinguished the facts of the Matigara Rolling Mills case, where the factory was closed, from the current situation. Additionally, the Tribunal discussed the principle of presumption of service in the case of CCE v. R.R. Tea Co., emphasizing that the appellant failed to rebut this presumption with any cogent evidence.

The Tribunal further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE v. Mohan Bottling Co (P.) Ltd., highlighting the importance of the assessee providing cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of service. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the service on an authorized person, factory closure, or rebuttal of the presumption. As a result, both the stay application and the appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal, as the appellant did not succeed in proving the invalidity of the service of the adjudication order.