Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1623 - AT - Service TaxRecovery of Service tax alongwith interest and the penalties - suppression of taxable value - evasion of service tax - service of order - Law of Limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute about fact that the SCN was received by the appellant and he also received the notices to join the investigation. Though it is the case of the appellant that the SCN and the subsequent letters were served on the correct address of the appellant i.e. 28/10 Talawali Chanda, Dewas Naka, Indore (M.P.), once the SCN which triggered the adjudication and the Order-in-Original was the outcome for the same, it was incumbent duty of the appellant to follow the outcome of the said SCN. There is no apparent effort on the part of the appellant. Service of Order - defect in the address - HELD THAT:- The present is not the case of the wrong address. It is merely a typographical error that too of merely one slash being substituted by numeral one. Rest of the address apparently and admittedly is same. It cannot be presumed from any stretch of imagination that the postal services of the particular area will not be in a position to make out the said error. Letter of the appellant vide which they requested for the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT:- It is observed that no such reason of wrong address is mentioned in the said letter. Rather the letter is specifically mentioning the details of the Order-in-Original. There is nothing on record as to when and how the appellant acquired those details which again is sufficient to hold that the Order-in-Original was very much in the knowledge and notice of the appellant. It is due to the earlier noticed dilatory tactics and the negligent attitude of the appellant that the same was not pursued in time. Law of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Law of limitation intends to fix a time limit to a ‘lis’ which has to be mandatorily followed. Though there has been a catena of judgments that the merits of the case have always to be preferred instead of dismissing the ‘lis’ merely on technical grounds but those decisions are ample clear to hold that whenever there is an apparent malafide/negligence on the part of the appellant that the mandate of the procedural law of limitation must be given the full effect. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|