TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by limitation. The appeal is therefore dismissed. - Decided against the assessee. - Appeal No. ST/85498/15 - A/88906/16/SMB - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - Shri Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri Ganesh K S Iyer, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Vikram Kaushik, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Raju The appellant, M/s Mohd. Akram Khan, were issued show-cause notice demanding Service Tax for the service provided by them. The appellants were registered at the address Aambey Valley, Ambavane, Lonavla, Pune- 410401. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. The appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) after a long gap. The demand was confirmed on 25.2.2011 and the order was dispatched by Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice also addressed to the same address. The show-cause notice dated 25.9.2009 was received by the appellant at the same address. Learned AR relied on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Greenview Land and Buildcon Ltd. 2013 (32) STR 291 (P H) and Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 321 (P H). 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had given the decision observing as follows: - 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has consistently relied upon Section 37C of the Act, which is reproduced for facility of reference : 37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. - (1) An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingfully and realistically serve the affected party so as not merely to ensure that he has knowledge thereof but also to enable him to initiate any permissible action. The appellant justifiably submits that it was statutorily impermissible for the respondents to serve the adjudication order on a kitchen boy , who is not even a middle level officer and certainly not an authorized agent of the appellant. The version of the appellant that it learnt of the passing of the adjudication order dated 30-3-2012 only when, in the course of the recovery proceedings, the Department s officials had visited its unit, is certainly believable. The fact that, firstly, the order had not been passed in the presence of the appellant, so as to render its subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the legislature in as much that, both the sections have sub-sections which contemplate the alternate mode of service of the order/ decision/ summon/ notice enshrined in the failure to serve the assessee as provided under sub section (a). I find that in the said case, there was no acknowledgement received from the Postal authorities and therefore, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the instant case. 4.2 In the case of Greenview Land and Buildcon (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has observed as follows: - 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the aforesaid orders, we do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the 1st Appellate Authority as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the Appellate Authority. 4.3 In the case of Mohan Bottling (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has observed as follows: - 6. from the perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 37C of the 1944 Act. we have no hesitation to hold that the envelop containing the order was despatched under Registered A.D. Post on the correct address. Therefore, it shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which the letter is tendered or delivered by post or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided under sub-section (1) by affixing the same to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business. In the present case, the assessee has not alleged even a single word that the envelop containing the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
