9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livered to one of the employee of appellant namely Shri Prateek Rao. He admittedly is the employee of appellant as service supervisor. It is opined that issuance of copy of order by speed post does not amount to service thereof as such because it will be mere dispatch of the order - No doubt in section 37C, speed post is the mode of service but proof of dispatch is still mandatory. In the absence of proof of receipt of the O-I-O to the appellant sent by speed post, the same cannot be held to have been served. 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 fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is alleged to not have 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)15-39/Galaxy/AC/Adj/2019-20/3474 dated 18.10.2019 vide which an amount of Rs.32,14,167/- 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 above. Appeal against the said order has been rejected on the ground of limitation being filed mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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. Chartered Accountant 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. Departmental Representative while rebutting the submissions has mentioned that notice was duly served on the appellant and was received by the employee of the appellant. Vide e-mail dated 27.2.2023 the Superintendent Range-1, CGST Central Excise, Ratlam informed that: PFA the copy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As per section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, period two months for filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has to reckon not from the date of Order-in-Original but from the date of receipt of the said order by the assessee. No doubt in section 37C, speed post is the mode of service but proof of dispatch is still mandatory. In the absence of proof of receipt of the O-I-O to the appellant sent by speed post, the 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
