Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 78 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 289 days in appeal before the tribunal and delay of 24 days before the commissioner (appeals) - The company were under liquidation proceedings - 100% EOU Software Technology Park Scheme - refund of input service tax credit used in the export of output services - October to December 2013 - HELD THAT:- the delay in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained. After going through the grounds of appeal, I find that there is no intentional and deliberate delay in filing the appeal and the delay occurred on account of the reasons stated in the application which is satisfactorily explained. In view of this, I condone the delay by allowing the COD application. Delay of 24 days before the commissioner (appeals) - Held that:- The Department has not brought any evidence on record to prove that the Order-in-Original No. 54/2016 dated 18/03/2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore was received by the appellant but the respondent has only proved the dispatch of the Order-in-Original and has not proved the receipt of the same. Moreover, the company during the relevant period was passing through a difficult phase of their business and was suffering loss of business and many employees were left the service of the company and there was relocation of the company’s premises and shifting of various assets and also the company was going through the voluntarily liquidation process. The rejection of the appeal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in law - the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and the matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the same on merit within one month after receipt of the certified copy of this order, after following the principles of natural justice and after affording adequate opportunity to the appellant.
|