2013 (1) TMI 550 - HC - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Presumption of service of Order - Delivery of the order - Receipt of order - Registered Post A.D.(RPAD) - Acknowledging the receipt of order - Evasion of duty - Assessee contended that dispatch of a document through Registered Post A.D. and purported service thereof by the postal authority with supporting document acknowledging the receipt, a presumption would arise of proper service of such document and such presumption would be rebuttable - Held that - Entire issue is based on disputed questions of fact. Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held that the service of the order was complete. - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment on evasion of duty and penalty based on disputed service of order through Registered Post A.D.

Analysis:
The appellant contested a judgment by the Customs, Excise & Service Appellate Tribunal imposing a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs for alleged evasion of duty and penalty. The Department claimed the order was served via Registered Post A.D. and acknowledged by the appellant's wife. The appellant, however, denied receiving the order through his wife. After obtaining a certified copy of the Order-In-Original through a writ petition, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal, which also rejected the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the uncertainty around who received and signed for the order, despite acknowledging the presumption of proper service with Registered Post A.D. The counsel contended that this presumption is rebuttable, and the appellant had made efforts to challenge it.

The High Court noted that the issue revolved around disputed facts regarding the service of the order. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concluded that the order was properly served, with the former providing detailed reasons for dismissing the appeal based on delay. The Court declined to delve into the specifics of how the presumption of service could be rebutted, emphasizing that the matter primarily involved factual disputes. Without endorsing the Tribunal's observations, the Court refused to entertain the appeal, stating that no legal question was raised. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.