9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case while being registered under the Service Tax law as envisaged under Finance Act, 1994 under the category of "transport of goods by road service" by virtue of Rule (2)(1) (d)(b) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, having not deposited the service tax including education cess and other cess was liable for demand of Rs. 7,54,752.00, on the allegation that, there has been willful suppression by the petitioner-company and consequently, contravention of the Act. The show cause demand notice was issued by Opposite Party No.3 dated 10.6.2010 calling upon the petitioner company to show cause. The petitioner-company filed a show cause and by order dated 12.7.2011 a demand of service tax, interest and penalty was raised. Thereafter, an appeal was moved by the petitioner company before the Commissioner (Appeals)-Opposite Party No.2 and by order dated 12.7.2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and the CESTAT in the second appeal confirmed the same. 3. The main contention raised by Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner was that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12.7.2011 was sent to the petitioner company, which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. It is further submitted that the clerk (employee of the petitioner-company) on whom the order passed by the adjudicated authority was served, had no authority to acknowledge receipt of the statutory order on behalf of the petitioner-company, for which, service of the impugned order also not lawful and proper and there has been no valid service of adjudication order on the petitioner-company. He, therefore, vehemently urged that when law prescribes a particular manner for doing a particular act and act must be done in that manner alone, other methods and modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. Relying on the above and various case laws cited he submitted that Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes the mode of service of notice. The same is quoted hereunder: "37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.- (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served,- (a) by tendering the decision , order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any; xxx xxx xxx xxx." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Rules 66-B thereto which is quoted hereunder: "Rule 66-B. INLAND SPEED POST SERVICE.- Inland Postal articles may be booked after obtaining receipts therefor, at the places specified in column(1) of the Schedule below and the post offices specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule for delivery under the Inland Speed Post Service subject to the following conditions namely: (1) Inland Speed Post Service shall be available in respect of all classes of mails, which can be sent by the registered service: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" In view of Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 read with Rule 66-B of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 (as inserted vide Gazette Notification dated 24th July, 1986), any postal article i.e. registered at the post office from which it is posted, and a receipt issued in respect of such article is to be treated as "registered post". Both in the case of "registered post" as well as "speed post", the articles when delivered to the post offices, receipts thereof are required to be issued and consequently, both "speed post" and "registered post" satisfy the requirement of Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r received postal packages on behalf of the company or not. We also called upon Miss Bengi Oram to file an affidavit whether she had received earlier any postal packages on behalf of the company. After such order was passed, a further affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner-company through its General Manager, tendering an unconditional apology for filing additional affidavit dated 21.11.2014 without verifying the detail factual position and seeking indulgence of the Court to withdraw the said additional affidavit dated 21.11.2014. The aforesaid facts are merely being recorded to indicate the manner in which the petitioner-company has sought to try and pass the blame on an employee in order to try and justify their admitted delay in filing of the appeal. 11. It appears that post amendment vide Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013) w.e.f. 10.5.2013, the following amendment came to be incorporated in Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is as follows: "SECTION 37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. - (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, - (a) by tenderin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993 (as amended on 24th July 1986). In our considered view, the insertion of "speed post" within the scope and ambit with the "registered post" as mandatory thereunder. Consequently, the amending statute is held by us as "clarificatory amendment" and would have retrospective effect and, therefore, the argument to the contrary by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner hereby stands rejected. 13. In this respect, before concluding the matter, it would also to be most relevant to note herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), came to hold that "sufficient cause for explaining the delay is an expression which is found in various statute and it is essentially means as adequate or enough". 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances, the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay of 244 days and the attempt made to cover up the delay by raising another matter, i.e. "a disciplinary action initiated against a Class-IV employee", we are afraid that the same does not show sufficient cause and the causes shown for condonation are of no acceptable va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
