9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said SCN was never received by them. The perusal thereof reflects that appellant has specifically mentioned about the SCN dated 25.4.2018 to have been received only on 17.9.2018 due to the same being earlier served on the wrong addresses. Facts remains are that the SCN was never served upon the appellant. Question of receiving the same does not at all arises. The said non-service is the sufficient violation of the statutory mandate. In the given circumstances, the order of remanding the matter to pass an order after verification that too for a period only of 3 months, as passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is opined to not to be sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason of violation of basic principle of natural justice that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Shri Ankit Totuka, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, ld. D.R. for the Department. 4. It is primarily submitted on behalf of the appellant that the present adjudication has to be rejected for preliminary reason that the show cause notice was never served upon the appellant within the maximum period as provided under the statute i.e. within the period of 5 years. It is mentioned that there is no apparent reason to invoke the maximum period over and above the normal period. Ld. Counsel has brought to the notice that the Show Cause Notice was otherwise issued against the wrong address. The certificate of registration is impressed upon where the residential address of appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder VCES 3 till 31st of December, 2012 that the matter with respect to the demand of remaining 3 months period has been remanded back to the original adjudicating authority, ld. Counsel has impressed upon that service of SCN was mandatory. The non-service is sufficient for ordering dropping of the demand. It is in addition submitted that appellant was providing the services of C F agent. It got itself registered in the year 2014 only when the quantum of commission received by the appellant touched the threshold of taxable limit. The order under challenge is accordingly, prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Per contra ld. DR has laid emphasis upon the Order-in-Appeal itself. With respect to the silence about t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCN within the maximum period provided to the Department for the purpose. 7. It is also apparent from the record that appellant was not registered prior the year 2014. The impugned SCN has raised the demand for the year 2012-13. Department has not produced any document on record to show as to how the demand was proposed for two more financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide the letter dated 17.9.2018. Nor there is any evidence to show that prior to 2014 also the appellant was rendering the impugned service for such quantum so as to bring him under the tax net. On the contrary appellant has sufficiently proved that the impugned SCN nor the notices of appearance before the original Adjudicating Authority was ever got served upon the correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
