9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral of Central Excise Intelligence, a show cause notice dated 27-12-2006 was issued demanding service tax on hire charges paid by the railways to the appellant treating the charges as consideration towards rendering of "customer care service" falling under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". The said demand pertains to the period from July, 2003 to September, 2006. A detailed reply was filed by the appellant. However, the 2nd respondent confirmed the proposal and demanded a sum of Rs. 74,35,664/- by invoking the extended period of limitation and also levied interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. 3. Against the said order of the Commissioner dated 30-4-2007, the appellant preferred appeal to the Tribunal along with an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals along with appeal No. S/157/2007, which was remanded back to the Tribunal by this Court, which is also on the same issue. However, when the stay applications were taken up for consideration, based on the written submissions filed on behalf of the Revenue, the Tribunal, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, based on the objections of the Revenue, rejected the appeals as time barred without going into the merits of the matter, on the premise that the orders were served on the appellant on 9-5-2011, stated to have been dispatched by speed post. Against the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeals. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) was dispatched on 9-5-2011 by speed post. However, there is no proof as to when the same was received by the appellant. It is the stand of the appellant that he received a copy of the order only on 23-12-2011, whereinafter the appellant preferred the appeals before the Tribunal. Reckoning the limitation from 23-12-2011, the appeals filed by the appellant on 4-1-2012 is well within time. The further contention of the counsel for the appellant/assessee is that prior to 10-5-2013, service through speed post was not one of the approved/recognised modes of service, as is evident from Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act and, therefore, if such notice had been sent by speed post, the same cannot form the basis for the Tribunal to reject the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en served on the date on which the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or delivered by post or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1)." 11. It is evident from Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act, prior to 10-5-2013, service through speed post was not one of the modes of service of orders, decisions, summons, etc. On and from 10-5-2013, speed post was made as one of the modes of service for orders, decisions, summons, etc., provided it is supported by proof of delivery. Therefore, it is clear that proof of service is mandatory for the service effected through speed post on and after 10-5-2013, but prior to 10-5-2013, service through speed post not being a recognised/approved mode of service as per the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
