2010 (6) TMI 259 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) - the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed before him on the ground of time bar, by observing that the impugned order was dispatched from the office of the lower authority on 12-10-2007 under the cover of Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Held that -limitation for filinf appeal starts from period of communication of order and not by sending order itself. Since there was no evidence received from postal department to show that stood delivered to assessee, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was remanded to him for verifying date of receipt of order by assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time bar for filing appeal based on the date of communication of the order.
2. Interpretation of service of decisions orders under section 37(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Requirement of evidence of delivery for proper service.

Analysis:

1. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing representations from both sides, noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred. The impugned order was dispatched on 12-10-2007, and the appeal was filed on 6-4-2009, more than 17 months later. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation for filing an appeal starts from the communication of the order, not the sending of the order itself. Since there was no evidence that the order was received by the appellant or that the acknowledgement due was returned, the Tribunal found that the appeal was not time-barred.

2. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of section 37(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning the service of decisions orders, which also apply to service tax under section 83 of the Act. The Tribunal highlighted that the service of the order must be completed as per the requirements of section 37. However, without evidence of delivery or receipt by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the service could not be deemed proper.

3. Relying on a previous decision of the Tribunal in a similar case, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and remanded the matter for verification of the date of receipt of the order by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper service as contemplated by law and the necessity of evidence to establish the delivery of orders. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of time bar for filing an appeal, the interpretation of service provisions under the Central Excise Act, and the requirement of evidence for proper service, providing a detailed understanding of the Tribunal's decision in this case.