2018 (5) TMI 827 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Service of order - relevant date - whether the date of despatch of the impugned order dated 05.04.2011 from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be considered as the relevant date for communication, or on 24.07.2017 as claimed by the appellant regarding receipt of such order? Held that - Since the impugned order was sent by the Postal Department under Postal receipt No.1228, as per the mandates of Section 37 C, it has to be construed that the order has been served on the applicant within the reasonable time from the date of its dispatch - the date of sending of the impugned order through registered post i.e. on 05.04.2011 should be considered as the date of communication of the order. Since the appeal was filed after more than six & half years, thereafter, without explaining any reasonable cause for such delay, we are of the view that appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of limitation - delay cannot be condoned - COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Ascertainment of relevant date for communication of impugned order.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, claiming the order was received on 24.07.2017, while the Commissioner stated it was dispatched on 05.04.2011. The Tribunal examined the dispatch details and noted that the order was sent via registered post on 05.04.2011, in compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appellant's claim of receiving the order on 24.07.2017. Citing the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling, the Tribunal held that the date of dispatch should be considered as the date of communication. As the appeal was filed after a significant delay without a valid reason, it was dismissed.

The Tribunal confirmed that the order was dispatched on 05.04.2011 and served in compliance with statutory provisions. The appellant's failure to provide evidence of receiving the order on 24.07.2017 led the Tribunal to uphold the date of dispatch as the date of communication. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that sending the order via registered post to the correct address constitutes sufficient compliance with the law. The burden of proof lies with the appellant to show non-receipt of the order, which was not discharged in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed along with the COD application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and COD application, ruling in favor of considering the date of dispatch as the date of communication of the impugned order. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of receiving the order on a later date and the legal requirement for service via registered post. The Tribunal's decision aligned with established legal principles and upheld the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions in such matters.