9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of address, if any, for his premises. Appellant failed to comply with the said mandate rather opted to maintain silence even of enquiring the status of the show cause notice, the demand whereof was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority in April, 2015. Law of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Law of limitation is meant to fix a period to a lis. No doubt the delay cannot be allowed to take away the substantive right of the parties where the aggrieved party has merits otherwise but since it being a statutory mandate, the law has to be followed in true spirit specially when there is apparent delay either intentional or even negligent on the part of the appellant. Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No.ST/53218/2018-ST [SM] - A/5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2013 that the copy thereof did not came to the notice of the appellant. It is only when the demand notice dated 21.07.2016 which was served upon the changed address of appellant i.e. 33 Sangam Colony, Road No.40 Jaipur as well along at the previous address, that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was preferred on 29.09.2016. It is submitted that since the order dated 17th April 2015 was never in the knowledge of the appellant till the demand notice of 21.07.2016. The certified copy of the Original Order could thereafter be obtained on 5 August, 2016. The appeal was filed on 29 September, 2016. Hence the same is well within the period of 60 days from the receipt of copy of order. The order rejecting the appeal held the same to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addresses of the appellant. Address of his lawyer Dadda Co. as 14/33 Malvia Nagar, Jaipur was also informed to the Department but only in the month of September, 2018 i.e. after the pronouncement of the impugned Order-in-Original. Once the appellant was aware of enquiry and investigation, which started way back in the year 2012 itself vide the letter of Superintendent, Service Tax dated 29.01.2012 and he also acknowledge receiving the show cause notice of 25.09.2013, in furtherance of said investigation, it was appellants incumbent duty to inform not only the Department but the adjudicating authorities as well about the change of address, if any, for his premises. Appellant failed to comply with the said mandate rather opted to maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2018 that it was sent to his former address (the above address) where he did not reside and it was only when he visited the said premises that he was informed about the said notice. I find that in the said letter, the appellant has further stated that notice for personal hearing may be sent to him at the address of their counsel and at 61A, Jeewan Deep Colony, Road No.14, VKI Area, Jaipur, the above address. On one hand, the appellant has stated that he did not reside there and in the letter, it was stated that notices may be sent at this address. In the appeal memo also, the appellant has given the above address at which notices may be sent to him. It was thus evident that the impugned address was the mailing address of the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
