2019 (5) TMI 1623 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of Service tax alongwith interest and the penalties - suppression of taxable value - evasion of service tax - service of order - Law of Limitation - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about fact that the SCN was received by the appellant and he also received the notices to join the investigation. Though it is the case of the appellant that the SCN and the subsequent letters were served on the correct address of the appellant i.e. 28/10 Talawali Chanda, Dewas Naka, Indore (M.P.), once the SCN which triggered the adjudication and the Order-in-Original was the outcome for the same, it was incumbent duty of the appellant to follow the outcome of the said SCN. There is no apparent effort on the part of the appellant. Service of Order - defect in the address - HELD THAT - The present is not the case of the wrong address. It is merely a typographical error that too of merely one slash being substituted by numeral one. Rest of the address apparently and admittedly is same. It cannot be presumed from any stretch of imagination that the postal services of the particular area will not be in a position to make out the said error. Letter of the appellant vide which they requested for the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT - It is observed that no such reason of wrong address is mentioned in the said letter. Rather the letter is specifically mentioning the details of the Order-in-Original. There is nothing on record as to when and how the appellant acquired those details which again is sufficient to hold that the Order-in-Original was very much in the knowledge and notice of the appellant. It is due to the earlier noticed dilatory tactics and the negligent attitude of the appellant that the same was not pursued in time. Law of Limitation - HELD THAT - Law of limitation intends to fix a time limit to a lis which has to be mandatorily followed. Though there has been a catena of judgments that the merits of the case have always to be preferred instead of dismissing the lis merely on technical grounds but those decisions are ample clear to hold that whenever there is an apparent malafide/negligence on the part of the appellant that the mandate of the procedural law of limitation must be given the full effect. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Allegation of wrong address for service of Order-in-Original.
3. Negligence and deliberate ignorance of appellant in responding to notices.
4. Interpretation of law of limitation and consideration of malafide/negligence.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant's appeal against the Order-in-Original was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The appellant contended that the order was not received until a letter requesting a copy was sent to the department. The appellant argued that the order was sent to the wrong address, causing a delay in receiving it. The appellant relied on various case laws to support the argument that the appeal was filed within the limitation period. However, the Department argued that the appellant had received previous communications and had deliberately ignored responding, leading to the delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellant claimed that the Order-in-Original was served at a wrong address due to a typographical error. The appellant argued that as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, service by speed post must be accompanied by proof of delivery, which was not provided by the Department. The Department, on the other hand, argued that the address error was minor and did not affect the delivery of the order. The Tribunal observed that the address error was not substantial and did not hinder the delivery of the order.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal noted the appellant's negligent behavior in responding to the show cause notice and subsequent communications. Despite receiving the show cause notice and multiple reminders for personal hearings, the appellant did not reply or appear before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority found the appellant's lack of response as an indication of no defense against the allegations, leading to the confirmation of the service tax liability.

Issue 4:
Regarding the interpretation of the law of limitation, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of following the time limits set by law. While acknowledging the need to consider the merits of a case, the Tribunal emphasized that malafide or negligence on the part of the appellant must be taken into account. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that delays caused by dilatory tactics or negligence should not be condoned. In this case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order under challenge and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely responses and adherence to procedural laws, especially in cases involving negligence or deliberate ignorance.