9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant herein is registered with the service tax department and was also availing the benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Based on the audit conducted for the period March 2015 to June 2017 that the service tax of an amount of Rs. 3,95,077/- and Rs. 5,81,250/- along with the amount of interest proportionate in terms of Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and the proposal for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Act. A show cause notice No. 58/2020-21 dated 23.12.2020 was served upon the appellant. The proposal was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. 15/2021-22 dated 25.01.2022. Being aggrieved of the said order that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledgement about impugned order in original dated 25.01.2022 to have been received on 04.02.2022. It is further submitted that department had never received any request from the appellant for providing the copy of order in original nor such request has been placed on record before this Bench also. With these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 6. In rebuttal thereto, learned counsel has mentioned that the name of the person mentioned in the acknowledgment document produced by the postal department, is not the appellant's authorized representative. In fact, the person could never been traced by the appellant. The affidavit of head of Pithampur plant is placed on record to this effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of two months during which, otherwise, the appeal would have been filed. The present appeal apparently and admittedly has been after a delay of more than 12 months from the date of receipt of order-in-original as shown in the document received from Postal Department. Keeping in view the said statutory mandate of Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the present appeal on the grounds of limitation. I draw my support from the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) when the Hon'ble Court held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough rebuttable. 10. To rebut the said presumption one affidavit only is placed on record. To my opinion same is not sufficient to falsify the said service report for the following reasons: (i) The order was delivered at the same address at which the show cause notice was received by the appellant. (ii) Appellant filed reply to said show cause notice. (iii) Appellant's representative attended the personal hearing before original adjudicating authority. (iv) Appellant didn't put any effort to know the status of proceedings before original adjudicating authority till the recovery notice was received. Otherwise, also I do not find any request from the appellant even post receiving the recovery notice dated 15.02.2023 vide which appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
