9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asion with the appellant to be aware about the said Order-in Original. It is impressed upon that it is only after the recovery proceedings initiated that the Order-in-Original came to the notice of the appellant and the appeal was preferred before Commissioner (Appeals). It is apparent from grounds of appeal as well as from the application of appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) praying for rectification of mistake. The show cause notice is of October, 2007 and was served on the previous address. There is no denial on the part of the appellant that the show cause notice was received by the appellant - the foremost argument of the appellant about ignorance of the adjudication of the said show cause notice is not at all acceptable. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned adjudication is that a show cause notice No.DL-II/ST/R-18/ST-3/07 dated 26.10.2007 was issued after a short payment of service tax amounting to ₹ 3,79,511/- for a period of April 2006 to September, 2006 was noticed during the scrutiny of ST-3 return by the Department for the said period. The said demand of short payment, as was proposed by the said show cause notice, was confirmed initially vide Order-in-Original No.149 dated 27.01.2011. Being aggrieved, an appeal thereof was filed in the year 2018, which was dismissed vide the order under challenge, on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Mr. Himanshu Goel, ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of Department that mentioning the change of address in ST-1 is highly inadmissible a proof for the change of address of the appellant. It is impressed upon that Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically paid emphasis on Rule 4 (5A) of Service Tax Rules prescribing the mode of intimating the change of the details of the assessee including the address thereof. The appellant since has failed to comply the said mandate, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge, Commissioner (Appeals) was otherwise not entitled to condone the delay beyond 90 days of the date of the receipt of Order in Original. The Order-in-Original was issued to the appellant on the date of the order itself. Nothing was received, as far as, the non-delivery ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous address. There is no denial on the part of the appellant that the show cause notice was received by the appellant. In the given circumstances, the foremost argument of the appellant about ignorance of the adjudication of the said show cause notice is not at all acceptable. 6.3 Now coming to the pleas of ST-I Returns and the impressed upon acknowledgement of the Department vide ST-3 Returns, qua the change of address, it is held that the statute itself prescribes of procedure of informing the change or any of the detail of the assessee as per Rule 4 (5A) of ST Rules, 1994. The rule mandate that whenever there is a change in any information of details furnished by an assessee in form ST-1 at the time of obtaining registration or h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and bonafide. There has been catena of judgments Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai 2009 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that whenever the delay is deliberate with the apparent intend to forfeit the law of limitation or even when it is caused due to negligence on the part of the appellant, the same has not to be condoned and the strict consideration to the principles of limitation has to be given. It has also been the settled law that the cause of delay which by due care and attention, the party could have avoided cannot be considered as a sufficient cause. 7. From the facts of the present case, it is clear beyond doubts that the appellant has been highly negligent about the status of investigation based whereupon the impugned SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. I.T.C. s case (supra) was rendered taking note of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
