9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by them on 23.11.2015, the appeal filed before the first appellate authority on 14.01.2016 is well within the time limit - impugned order set aside. The matter needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority on merits inasmuch as the first appellate authority has not recorded any findings on the merits of the case - appeal restored. - Appeal No. ST/31157/2016 - Final Order No. A/30598/2018 - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Hon ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) Shri M.V.S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran ] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS- 004-APP-162-16-17-ST, dated 07.10.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no stamp of appellant s firm as to indicate that the said acknowledgement card was received by the responsible person at the appellant s office. Further, it also transpires that the acknowledgement card does not indicate reference to Order-in-Original being enclosed. Further, I find that appellant by a letter dated 15.12.2015 has informed the Additional Commissioner that they have received the copy of the Order-in-Original by e.mail on 23.11.2015 and informed the lower authorities that they will be filing the appeal within two months as indicated. On a specific query from the Bench, Ld. Counsel has filed an affidavit of the Partner of the appellant herein wherein his position has been explained as under. BEFORE THE CUSTOMS, EXC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.0 As per sub-section (3A) of section 85 of the Finance Act an appeal should be filed within two months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is received by the aggrieved party. 6.0 Section 37 (C) of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to service tax envisages the modality as to how the order sought to be appealed against is to be served . 7.0 In the case of M/s Neha Cosmetics Vs. CCE [(2007)] 208 ELT 494 (Del.HC DB). It was held that the mere sending an order by registered post is not sufficient. The document has to be served on the party. 8.0 Though the order sought to be appealed against (O-I-O No.011 /2015-165-ADJN (ADC) (S.Tax), dated. 15-07-2015 passed by the Additional Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling of the appeal on 14-01-2016, it was contested by the service tax department that copy of the impugned order was sent by registered/speed post served on 29-09-2015 / 22-09-2015. 12.0 It may be added that the impugned services were provided to SEZ company which are exempt from the liability of service tax. Accordingly immediately on coming to know of the passing of the order by the Additional Commissioner confirming demand of service tax, copy of the impugned order was obtained by us and appeal was filed within the stipulated time reckoning the date of communication of the order as 23-11-2015. 13.0 It is therefore submitted that appeal was filed within the stipulated time and that there was no delay in filing the appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
