9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of Rs. 14,72,939/- on 20 March 2018 from the bank account of appellant. It has, therefore, been stated that stated that the requirement of pre-deposit should be considered as satisfied. 3. The letter sent by the Bank on 18 October, 2018 mentions that Rs. 14,72,939.61 has been deducted from the account of the appellant and that a Demand Draft has been sent to Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, GST and Central Excise Sagar. Thus, as the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit has been satisfied, the appeal is considered competent. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant and learned representative for the Department have also been heard on the merits of the appeal. 5. The appellant had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. The appellant did not pay the dues adjudged even after the expiry of the appeal period. Therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated and a notice for recovery of dues under section 87 (b) of the Act was issued on 08.03.2018 in pursuance of the said notice, the Union Bank of India on 20.03.2018 transferred an amount of Rs. 14,72,939/- from the appellants account to the CGST authority. It is clear from the above recovery proceedings the submission of the appellant that the order was received by them only on 02.06.2018 is patently false. 9. As per provisions of Section 35F, as substituted by finance (No.2) Act 2014 w.e.f. 06.08.2014, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has deposited, seven and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also been stated that the Department, thereafter, sent a letter dated 29/31 May 2018 to the appellant stating therein that the order in original was sent to the appellant by speed post which is clear from entry No. 4157 at page 40 of the dispatch register, but as a request had been made, a copy of the order was again being sent. 8. It is the contention of the learned Counsel of the appellant that since the order dated 07 September 2017 was received by the appellant with the communication dated 31 May 2017, the appeal was filed on 21 June 2018 which would be within the stipulated period. 9. On 06 December 2018 time was given to the representative of the department to seek a report. Learned representative has placed before the Court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich would be within the stipulated time. We, therefore, find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Order-in-Original dated 07 September 2017 was actually served upon the appellant on 02 June 2018. The appellate order does not record any finding about proof of delivery nor any document has been produced before to show the delivery of letter. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that before filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the amount had already been deducted from the bank account of the appellant and transferred to the account of the Department. This fact has been also noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, but yet the appeal was dismissed for the reason that 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
