TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of the appellant to follow the outcome of the said SCN. There is no apparent effort on the part of the appellant. Service of Order - defect in the address - HELD THAT:- The present is not the case of the wrong address. It is merely a typographical error that too of merely one slash being substituted by numeral one. Rest of the address apparently and admittedly is same. It cannot be presumed from any stretch of imagination that the postal services of the particular area will not be in a position to make out the said error. Letter of the appellant vide which they requested for the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT:- It is observed that no such reason of wrong address is mentioned in the said letter. Rather the letter is specifically men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngwith interest and the penalties was proposed vide the aforesaid SCN. The proposal was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. 73 dated 31.05.2017. Being aggrieved thereof, an Appeal was preferred vide Order-in-Appeal No. 195-18-19 dated 29.06.2018 that the same was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Being aggrieved, the Appeal is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Tamana Alam, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2017 was never received by the appellant till a letter dated 07.02.2018 was given to the Department asking for the copy of the Order-in-Original. Thus, the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT, Ahmedabad) Admannum Packagings Ltd. Vs. C.G.S.T., C.E., C.C., Indore reported in 2018 (7) TMI 259 (CESTAT, New Delhi) Hence, the matter is prayed to be set aside with the request of remanding back the same for being considered on merits. 4. While rebutting these arguments, it is submitted on behalf of the Department that the address on which the Order-in-Original was served was the same address as was mentioned in the SCN except with a typographical error of putting a slash and the same being substituted by numeral one. Admittedly, the appellant had received not only the SCNs but three of the letters calling it upon for the personal hearing despite neither the reply to the SCN was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of adjudicating authority resultantly is as follows: The notice did not bother to reply the SCN. In spite of repeated opportunities being provided by way of reminders and fixing date of personal hearing. This in itself indicates that they don t have any defence that can be put forth against the action. In absence of any defence from the side of notice the allegations leveled in SCN are naturally liable to be confirmed. Moreover, the figures of service tax liability shown in SCN are worked out on the basis of records maintained, recovered from Noticee No. 1 premises and accepted by Noticee No. 2 in the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, hence not at all disputable. 6. Comi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particular area will not be in a position to make out the said error. 7. Finally coming to the letter of the appellant vide which they requested for the Order-in-Original, it is observed that no such reason of wrong address is mentioned in the said letter. Rather the letter is specifically mentioning the details of the Order-in-Original. There is nothing on record as to when and how the appellant acquired those details which again is sufficient to hold that the Order-in-Original was very much in the knowledge and notice of the appellant. It is due to the earlier noticed dilatory tactics and the negligent attitude of the appellant that the same was not pursued in time. 8. Law of limitation intends to fix a ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
