2024 (12) TMI 83 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of appeal on the ground of limitation without looking into the merits of the appeal - HELD THAT - As per section 84 of Finance Act 1994 the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) has to be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the order of original adjudicating authority in the present case. It has been recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 17 of the impugned order that from the document collected from Assistant Commissioner (Law) CGST Commissionerate Jaipur, its stands revealed that the O-I-O was dispatched to the appellant by registered AD and that the same was duly received by the appellant as the acknowledgement duly stamped by the appellant was being received in the concerned Commissionerate - the receipt of stamed AD is the sufficient compliance of Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while adjudicating the plea of limitation against appellant based on the document (Revised AD registered part) before him - there are no reason to differ with the findings in the order under challenge - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection based on limitation without considering merits.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed to challenge the rejection of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of limitation without delving into the merits of the case. The appellant, engaged in construction of Residential Complex Services, was accused of not paying service tax and not declaring taxable value in their returns. The service tax amounting to Rs. 23,38,673/- was proposed to be recovered along with interest and penalties. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected on the technical ground of limitation, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant argued that the rejection based on limitation was erroneous, citing the High Court order and lack of natural justice. The appellant also raised concerns about the service of the Order-In-Original (O-I-O) and the date of filing the appeal. The respondent contended that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period, as it was not submitted before 25.07.2017, after the High Court decision. The Tribunal reviewed the events leading to the appeal, including the receipt of the O-I-O, the deposit for filing the appeal, and the subsequent filing date.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had knowledge of the O-I-O prior to the certified copy being received on 20.06.2017, based on the deposit date for filing the appeal. The appeal had to be presented within two months of receiving the original adjudicating authority's order, as per section 84 of the Finance Act 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) had sufficient evidence of the O-I-O being dispatched and received by the appellant. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the limitation issue, as supported by the document presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding the limitation plea. The order rejecting the appeal based on limitation was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the current appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 28/11/2024.