Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 900 - HC - Service TaxPeriod of limitation - filing an appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) - condonation of delay - 78 days beyond 3 months - appeal could not be filed within prescribed period due to non-receipt of the order in original - Held that:- it is true that the outer limit is six months for entertaining of the appeal including condonation of delay. However, in order to find out that the limitation would begin from which date, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No.2 to verify the record of the acknowledgement received, if any, or any other material for ascertaining the date on which the order was received by the appellant. When the appellant made statement on oath that it received the order only on 11.09.2012 to dislodge or for non-accepting the statement made, there should have been material on record for receipt of the order by the appellant on a particular date. If the material was not there, the second respondent could not proceed on the basis that the order despatched on 16.03.2012 ought to have been received within reasonable time. It is hardly required to be stated that when the statute provides express beginning of the limitation from the date of receipt of the order, unless the receipt is so verified and considered, the limitation cannot be said to have begun. In any case, even if the date of despatch is considered on 16.03.2012 then also within the outer limit of six months, the appeal was already presented on 13.09.2012. It is hardly required to be stated that when the statute provides express beginning of the limitation from the date of receipt of the order, unless the receipt is so veri fied and considered, the limitation cannot be said to have begun. In any case, even if the date of despatch is considered on 16.03.2012 then also within the outer limit of six months, the appeal was already presented on 13.09.2012.Therefore, in the absence of any material considered the date from which the limitation period ought to have been taken, it was a fit case to condone the delay. - Decided in favour of appellant
|