TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26.05.2011, as early as on 15.09.2011, it is made clear that limitation would commence only from 15.09.2011 and not from the date of receipt of another certified copy of the order-in-original No.47 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011. In the light of availability of an alternate remedy, order-in-original No.47 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011, cannot be set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - W.A.Nos.726 & 727 of 2018 and CMP No.6957 of 2018 in WA.No.726 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Being aggrieved by the common ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery action under Section 87 of Financial Act will be initiated. 4. W.P.No.503 of 2013, has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents herein to issue a certified copy of the order-in-original No.47 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, the 1st respondent, so as to enable the appellant to file an appeal under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Vide said order dated 26.05.2011, the Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, has passed the following orders 17. ORDER i) I confirm Service Tax demand of ₹ 13,14,018/- Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and Eighteen Only) on M/s.Ocher Studios Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, under the proviso to Section 73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; viii) I confirm the interest of ₹ 26,853/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three only) payable on belated payment of Service Tax of ₹ 12,36,000/- made on 5.08.2008 under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; ix) I appropriate an amount of ₹ 81,058/- paid towards the demand of interest against (vii) above; x) I appropriate an amount of ₹ 6,557/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven only) paid on 23.12.2008 towards interest against (viii) above; xi) I impose penalty of ₹ 13,14,018/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and Eighteen only) on (i) under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, this penalty shall be reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally misconceived as it could be evident from the file produced by the respondents that the order-in-original No.47 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011 was dispatched on 13.9.2011, as per the endorsement dated 13.9.2011, and the petitioner studio has received the same on 15.9.2011. The postal acknowledgement card contains the seal and signature of the person, who has received the order. 4. In such view of the matter, the plea of the non-service of the order-in-original No.47 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011 does not appear to be justified and accordingly, the consequential demand for payment of arrears in terms of the adjudication order cannot be interfered with or stayed. The petitioner has to workout his remedy as against the order-in-original No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the date of hearing and hence the contentions of the respondent could not be repudiated before the Writ Court and therefore to this extent, the order of the Writ Court is liable to be interfered with. (c) Writ Court failed to see that the Impugned order dated 12.12.2012, the respondents have stated that recovery proceedings would be instituted against the appellant if the demand has not been paid and since the appellant has no opportunity to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the order of the 2nd respondent ought to have been interfered with. (d) Writ Court failed to consider that the impugned order is violative of the statutory provisions contained in Central Excise Act of 1944 and the Constitution provisions under Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to accept the said contention. On one hand, the appellant has admitted receipt of the certified copy and on the other hand, has contended that certified copy was not furnished. At page 27 of the typed set of papers, appellant had enclosed the speed post acknowledgment due, maintained in the Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai, which figures the name of the appellant at Serial No.23, in the Register, and it fortifies the contention of the respondents that certified copy of the order-in-original No.47 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011, was sent. We also saw the postal acknowledgement, at page No.28 of the typed set of papers, which contains the seal of M/s.Ocher Studios Pvt. Ltd. Thus, as rightly obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
