2018 (5) TMI 2072 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - certain expenses like Samples/Promotional dispatch IS Chargers etc. - Clearing and Forwarding Services - demand of duty along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT - A series of correspondences were made with the appellant asking for payment of arrear tax arising out of the Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2011 and 13.12.2011 and all the correspondences were duly received by the appellant as none of the correspondences were returned by the postal authorities as undelivered. This fact has not been refuted by the appellant in their appeal. It appears that the appellant had knowledge of the passing of the impugned Adjudication Order. There are no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of appeals as barred by limitation.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellants, registered for providing taxable service under "Clearing and Forwarding Services," failed to discharge service tax on certain expenses like Samples/Promotional dispatch, IS Chargers. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing demand of duty, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, and the appellants filed appeals against it.

2. Contentions: The appellants contended that the Adjudication Orders were passed in December 2011, and the appeals were filed on 07.11.2016, well within the period of limitation. They received a reminder letter dated 14.09.2016 directing them to deposit the dues raised by the Adjudication Order, which they claim was the first communication from the Adjudication authority, and hence, the appeal was filed within the limitation period.

3. Commissioner's Findings: The Commissioner (Appeals) gave a detailed finding mentioning that a series of correspondences were made with the appellants regarding the payment of arrear tax arising from the Order-in-Original dated 12.12.2011 and 13.12.2011. All correspondences were received by the appellants, as confirmed by the postal authorities. The Commissioner concluded that the appellants had knowledge of the Adjudication Order, and therefore, rejected the appeals as barred by limitation.

4. Decision: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the appellants had received all correspondences regarding the dues but failed to respond. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' contention of the appeal being within the limitation period was not acceptable. The Tribunal also dismissed the reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, deeming it inapplicable to the present case. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed.