9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditioning, restoration or decoration or other similar service for motor vehicles alongwith other services against various types of commissions. On the basis of scrutiny of documents submitted by the appellant for April, 2014 to June, 2017, the appellant alleged to have not declared and discharged service tax towards income from various types of commission and some other taxable heads viz. logistic charges, incentives as mentioned in the show cause notice F.No.V(ST)15-40/Landmark/AC/Adj/2019-20/3435 dated 17.10.2019. Vide which an amount of Rs. 48,13,020/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellant towards service tax liability alongwith interest at appropriate rate. Such proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original as mentioned abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said entire period has already been directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.(C) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.1.2022 to be excluded from the calculating period of limitation. 6. Ld.CA has mentioned that serving notice to employee of the appellant is also not in compliance of section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944. With these submissions, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 7. Ld.DR while rebutting the submissions has mentioned that notice was duly served on the appellant and was received by the employee of the appellant. Such receipt has been relied upon the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus there is no infirmity in the order wherein the period of limitation has been ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same cannot be held to have been served. 9. With respect to second mode of service, I observe that Shri Prateek Rao, who admittedly received the order is an employee of the appellant in their workshop. In addition, ld.CA has placed on record an affidavit of Shri Prateek Rao, wherein he deposed that he received notice but he failed to bring it to the notice of the appellant. The contents of said affidavit are fully corroborated by partner of the appellant, Shri Abbas Ali Ghasswala. It gets clear from the affidavits that the Order-in-Original could never be brought to the notice of the appellant. It is only from the recovery notice dated 23.2.2023, the appellant acquired knowledge about the Order-in-Original dated 30.7.2020. On the very next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
