TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) and since the order was not dispatched by RPAD, it cannot be deemed to have been served on the appellant. Both these orders have been received by the appellant on 2.3.2013 and, therefore, the appeals have to be treated as having been filed in time and as such, the impugned order dismissing the appeals as time barred, without going into the merits of the case, is not correct. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and both these matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. - Delay condoned. - Appeal No.ST/57836/2013 and Appeal No.ST/58198/2013-ST - Final Orders Nos.54448-54449/2014 - Dated:- 28-10-2014 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat while the order confirming the service tax demand of ₹ 27,52,597/- which is the subject matter of appeal no.ST/57836/2013-SM, had been passed by the Addl. Commissioner on 31.03.2009, the order confirming the service tax demand of ₹ 45,65,720/-, which is the subject matter of appeal no.ST/57188/2013-EX(SM), had been passed on 15.02.2008, that the none of these orders have been received by the appellant, that both the orders were received only on 2.3.2013, when on the appellants request, the copies of these orders were made available, that appeals in both the cases were filed on 13.3.2013 and hence, the same have been filed within time and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had called a report from the jurisdictional Asstt. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.03/CPG/2008 dated 15.02.2008 for ₹ 45,65,720/- addressed to the assessee at 1, Chirag Enclave, Delhi. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division 1, New Delhi vide letter C.No.DL-1/ST/R-VIII/Misc./55/09/2841 dated 16.03.2009 forwarded the file of Marketing Times Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. containing O-I-O No.03/CPG/2008 dated 15.02.2008, which was given to Range on 18.03.2009. Letter was also written at partys address at A-1, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi vide this office letter of even no.26.03.2009. The party wrote on 13.05.2009 to intimate that they have changed their address from A-I, Chirag Enclave , Delhi to 18, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-20 and also authorized Shri Ramesh Kumar to receive the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Maruti Udyog Ltd.). The premises of the party situated at 18, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi were also visited by the offices on 20.01.2013 for recovery of the confirmed demands. Shri Rajeev Gupta, Vice President, Shri Anil Dhyani, Manager Accounts were found present. The reasons for non-payment of confirmed demand by the Company were asked to them. But Shri Rajeev Gupta, Vice President reiterated that they have not received any order till date. It is pertinent to note that the party did not respondent to a series of the recovery letters and reminders sent to them about their liabilities since 2009, denied all the letters documents received by persons duly authorized by themselves to collect the documents and have woken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed post and the same was not received back and, therefore, it has to be presumed that the same was received by the appellant, that as regards the order-in-original dated 15.02.2008 confirming the service tax demand of ₹ 45,65,720/- against the appellant, as per the Asstt. Commissioners report , the appellant had intimated about the change of address on 13.05.2009 and had deputed one Shri Ramesh Kumar to receive the orders on their behalf, that the order thus had been communicated to the appellant through Shri Ramesh Kumar on 26.03.2009 and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the appeals as time barred, as the delay in filing of these appeals is far beyond the period of 30 days, which could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal dated 15.02.2008, the department s plea is that the same had been delivered to Shri Ramesh Kumar of the appellant company on 26.03.2009, no evidence in this regard, has been brought on record. Similarly, in respect of the order-in-original dated 13.03.2009, the departments plea is that the same was dispatched to the appellant by speed post on 26.07.2012. However, under Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the permitted mode of communication of the adjudication order is registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) and since the order was not dispatched by RPAD, it cannot be deemed to have been served on the appellant. Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (279 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
