Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (3) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecision, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house . As applicable to the Service Tax Proceedings in the present case, the service was completed by affixing it on the notice board of the office - there was no delay in serving the impugned order. There are no justification for a delay of 4-5 years in filing this appeal after it has been issued and served. However, in order not to deprive the appellant of an opportunity of appeal, we condone the delay on payment of a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- which must be paid by the appellant to the PM CARE Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order - application disposed off. - SERVICE TAX CONDON .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant has filed the rejoinder to the reply on 8 February 2022. The case of the appellant in seeking condonation of delay is that the impugned order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi I was received by it only on 27.07.2019, i.e., after 5 years. From this date, the appeal should have been filed by 25.10.2019 but the same has been filed on 13.11.2019 i.e., with a delay of only 19 days which is sought to be explained on the ground that the employee of the applicant who received the certified copy of the order had misplaced it and thereafter left the company and it took time to trace it. As far as the period between 29.03.2014 and 27.07.2019 is concerned, the applicant submitted as follows:- (i) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 015 but the officers did not provide a copy is the Service Tax Commissionerate was bifurcated and they could not locate the file. (v) Thereafter, the Authorized Representative of the appellant sent another letter dated 01.12.2015 to the Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent (Adjudication) requesting for a certified copy of the impugned order mentioning therein that they had visited their office twice during August and September 2015, but they were told that the file could not be located. This was followed by another letter dated 28.12.2015 to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and to the Superintendent (Adjudication) requesting for a copy of the impugned order and as a reminder to Assistant Commissioner of the Division .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ating the appellant about the hearing on 22.11.2012. That letter was returned by the postal authorities undelivered mentioning therein left without address . Another letter was issued on 17.12.2012 fixing a personal hearing on 17.01.2013 and a third letter was sent on 09.01.2013 fixing personal hearing on 14.01.2013. Since the original letter was returned by the postal authorities undelivered, the second and third letters were sent through the Divisional office to be served personally upon the appellant at their address. However, Shri Sandeep, Sepoy, who was deputed to deliver the letter found the premises of the appellant locked and when he enquired from the neighbours, he was told that the appellant had left the address six months before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anding payment of the amount confirmed under the impugned order. Thereafter a copy of the impugned order has again been provided to the appellant on 27.07.2019. 6. We have considered the facts of the case. The enclosures to the letter received from the Department indicates that the order was sent by registered post and so were the letters intimating various dates on which personal hearing was fixed. The postal authorities have returned the letters undelivered with a remark left . As far as the letters for personal hearing were concerned, the Department also tried to serve it personally by sending a Sepoy from the Division. He gave a report on 20.12.2012 stating that the premises of the appellant were locked and the neighbours had told h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates