Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 673 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Cenvat credit - penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC - whether the appellant had received the order-in-original dated 16/03/12 in the month of March itself or as contended by them, they received this order on 18/06/12, when as per the endorsement on the last page of the order, a Xerox copy of the same was supplied to them - Held that:- It is seen that on the same day i.e. on 16/03/12, the Jurisdictional Range Officer had also addressed a letter to the appellant directing them to deposit forthwith the duty demand of ₹ 20,42,197/- confirmed against the appellant alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount imposed on them, but he did not endorse the copy of the adjudication order. Since on that day, the appellant had not received the order, after waiting for sometime, they addressed a letter on 13/04/12 to the Range office informing him that the order had not been received and with a request to supply the same. Moreover, in this case when on 13/04/12, the appellant had informed the Department that the order had not been received and if the order had been supplied forthwith, the appellant would have been able to file the appeal within time, but this was not done. In view of this, I hold that the date of receipt has to be treated as 18/06/12 and if the limitation period is counted from this date, the appeal has been filed within time. In view of this, the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time barred is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
|