9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to discharge the onus that it was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation, the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was justified in declining to condone delay. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, no indulgence is caused - Appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal No. 14 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2019 - Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav And Shri Justice Vivek Agarwal For the Appellant : Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Yogesh Singhal, learned counsel JUDGMENT PER JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV: This appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter was issued earlier also on several occasions with the repeated reminders. The absence of any action on those letters is opined sufficient to not to extend any benefit in favour of the applicant. Perusal of record also shows that an observation of the original adjudicating authority in the order dated 23rd December, 2011 highlighting the conduct of the then assessee observing that despite several communications and notices to the assessee/deceased Santosh Rai he had been noncooperative with the Department for providing any requisite documents. 4. In view of the above observations, we are of the opinion that there is no cogent explanation for the initial delay of two years. The document of applicant himself, falsifies the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rules 1994. The notice further states that summons were issued on 12.02.2007, 20.02.2007, 16.03.2007, 29.03.2007 and lastly on 04.06.2007, the noticee did not furnish the information sought. Consequently, information was collected from the companies to whom the noticee rendered services. Thereafter, vide notice dated 20.07.2007, the appellant was called upon to provide the information/documents such as TR6 Challan and ST3 returns evidencing payment of service tax. Except some information, appellant did not co-operate. Consequent whereof, information was sought from Additional Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Gwalior for providing copy of balance sheets/Profit and Loss A/c and Income Tax Returns for the period from 2005-06 to 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, passed the following order on 23.12.2011: (i) I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 43,12,700/- (Service Tax of ₹ 42,28,137/- and Ed. Cess of ₹ 84,563/-) (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Seven Hundred only) and order for recovery from the Noticee under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. I also order for appropriation of service tax amounting to ₹ 43,12,700/- which has already been deposited by the Noticee against the said demand. (ii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) or ₹ 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) per day upon them under Section 77 of the Act for failure to furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he copy of order-in-appeal dated 30.04.2014 and also requested to supply the same to present an appeal. It was also stated that the proprietor of the firm died on 03/11/2016. It is this application which is dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order; adverted supra. (10) Though it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal recorded a perverse finding that the appellate order was duly communicated. The finding, it is urged, is without cogent material on record, as the department did not produce any material evidence as to communication of the order under Section 35A(5) of 1944 Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in Saral Wire Craft Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963), to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any; (b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof, to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended; (c) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
