2016 (6) TMI 364 - AT - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Appellant did not received the order and came to know about the same when Revenue approached them for recovery of dues - Appeal filed within period of limitation from date of receipt of order - Held that - the examination of the dispatch register as produced before us which shows incomplete address of the consignee as also the fact that the valued stamp fixed on the same was only ₹ 12/-. It would negate the Revenue s contention of the order having been sent either under speed post or registered AD. In the absence of any other documentary evidence that the order being sent either under speed post or registered AD, we agree with the learned Advocate that the date of the receipt of the order has to be taken as 26/4/2012, when the same was delivered by hand under the cover of letter dated 25/4/2012. If that be so, the appeal filed on 04/6/2012 is within the period of limitation. Impugned order is set aside. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissal on the point of limitation.
2. Discrepancy in the mode of dispatch of the order.
3. Determination of the date of receipt of the order.
4. Decision on remand for consideration of merits without time bar objection.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dismissal of the appeal based on the point of limitation. The appellant claimed non-receipt of the order and filed the appeal within the limitation period upon becoming aware of the order through the Revenue's recovery approach. The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the order was sent via registered AD to the appellant's address. However, discrepancies arose when the Revenue produced a dispatch register and a letter indicating the order was sent by speed post, not registered AD. The address in the dispatch register was incomplete, and the stamp value was insufficient for speed post or registered AD, leading to the conclusion that the order was sent via ordinary post. Consequently, the date of receipt was determined as 26/4/2012, based on hand delivery under a cover letter dated 25/4/2012, allowing the appeal filed on 04/6/2012 to be within the limitation period.

The issue of discrepancy in the mode of dispatch played a crucial role in determining the date of receipt and subsequently the validity of the appeal within the limitation period. The examination of the dispatch register, incomplete address details, and the stamp value were pivotal in establishing that the order was sent via ordinary post, contrary to the Commissioner's assertion of registered AD. This discrepancy highlighted the need for clarity in communication methods to avoid such disputes regarding the date of receipt and adherence to limitation periods.

The judgment emphasized the importance of determining the date of receipt accurately to uphold the appellant's right to appeal within the limitation period. By establishing that the order was received on 26/4/2012, the appeal filed on 04/6/2012 was deemed valid within the prescribed timeframe. This decision underscored the significance of procedural adherence and the need for clear documentation to avoid disputes regarding timelines and procedural compliance in legal matters.

Lastly, the judgment concluded by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits without the time bar objection. By setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal to proceed without the limitation issue, the court ensured that the case would be evaluated based on its substance rather than procedural technicalities, promoting fairness and justice in the legal process. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of addressing substantive issues in legal proceedings.