Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (9) TMI 494 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
- Appeal against rejection based on limitation period for filing
- Evidence of receipt of Order-in-Original by the appellant
- Compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
The appeal in this case challenges the rejection based on the limitation period for filing. The appellant, registered for providing a taxable service, faced a Service Tax liability based on third-party information. The Order-in-Original was issued on 18.03.2019, proposing recovery from the appellant. The appeal against this order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as being barred by time. The appellant argued that they only became aware of the order on 17.07.2019 and filed the appeal on 7th August 2019, within 21 days of receiving the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this argument, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that while the Order-in-Original was dated 18.03.2019, there was no evidence of when the appellant received the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) mentioned that the order was dispatched by registered post and deemed delivered since it was not returned undelivered. However, the Tribunal found this to be presumptive, emphasizing the need to establish actual receipt by the appellant. The appellant presented information obtained under the RTI Act, indicating discrepancies in the delivery process, raising doubts about the actual receipt of the order.

Regarding compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's knowledge of the Order-in-Original was linked to the initiation of recovery proceedings, rather than formal receipt. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal based on limitation, citing previous decisions emphasizing the importance of actual receipt for calculating the appeal period. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for further adjudication on merits, as the rejection based on the limitation period was deemed incorrect. The reliance on a specific court decision was deemed legally untenable, necessitating a review of the case on its merits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates