9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1000 - HC - Central ExciseService of order - principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that at no point of time, he received the Order- in- Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has held that it is fact on record that the adjudication order was sent to the appellant through registered post on 19.05.2015 and the same was delivered at the premises of the appellant on 25.05.2015. In that circumstance, the date of received of adjudication order is 25.05.2015. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the appellant is with a delay of almost 15 months therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal as time -barred. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, it is difficult for us to take the view that the questions as proposed are substantial questions of law falling for the consideration of this Court. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the eligibility of input services. 2. Validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner disallowing CENVAT Credit and imposing recovery, interest, and penalty. 3. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the CESTAT. 4. Justifiability of the Tribunal's decision in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved a company engaged in manufacturing trousers, availing CENVAT credit on duty paid invoices of inputs and capital goods. The company wrongly obtained excess CENVAT credit on service tax paid to commission agents for sales activities, leading to a show-cause notice for recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, proceeding ex-parte, disallowed the CENVAT credit, ordered recovery, imposed interest, and penalty on the company. The company's appeal before the CESTAT was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of about 15 months in filing the appeal, leading to the present appeal before the High Court. 3. The appellant argued that they did not receive the Order-in-Original and were not well-versed with the provisions of the Excise Act. The Tribunal, however, found evidence of delivery of the order to the appellant's premises through registered post, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. 4. The High Court, after considering the arguments and facts on record, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the delay in filing the appeal was not justified. The Court found no substantial questions of law warranting interference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the evidentiary value of delivery records in legal proceedings.
|
