9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aneous Application is thus allowed. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the Order-in-Appeal No.778-ST/APPL/LKO/2022 dated 03.10.2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow vide which the appeal filed against the Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2021 has been rejected on the grounds of limitation holding that the appeal filed on 16.08.2022 is beyond permissible condonable time limit of one month, hence cannot be condoned. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is an Internet Installation Service provider to customers of the companies providing Broadband Access Services. During the course of providing the services, Cable is being laid down and Router is installed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed upon the taxpayer under Section 69 of the Act ibid read with Section 142 & 174 of the CGST Act for not taking service tax registration. (iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for failure to pay Service Tax & suppressing the facts and contravening provisions or rules with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. (v) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for not furnishing the information/not producing the documents/not appearing when issued with a summon before a Central Excise officer. (vi) Penalty should not be imposed upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeal filed by the Appellant on 16.08.2022 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. I find that the Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Division-II, Lucknow was received by the Appellant from the Range Superintendent on 19.07.2022 and the appeal was filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.08.2022. It is the case of the Appellant that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Range Superintendent vide letter dated 19.07.2022 informed the Appellant that the Order-in-Original was sent by Post on 31.12.2021 and the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the provisions of Section 37C(1)(a), any order passed under the Act was to be served through Registered Post or Speed Post to the person for whom it was entitled or his authorized agent with acknowledgement due as proof of delivery. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to produce evidence of delivery or service which is the mandate as per the Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act. In absence of proof of delivery of order dated 23.12.2021, the same cannot be deemed as served on the Appellant as has been held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of R. P. Casting Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and also by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
