2018 (9) TMI 1140 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Time limitation – Short-payment of service tax – Held that:- It is seen that the contention of the appellant that they have not received the copy of the order and that they applied to the Assistant Commissioner on 28.9.2015 is not supported by any probable evidence – Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation – Appeal dismissed. – Appeal No. ST/40540/2018 – Final Order No. 41970/2018 – Dated:- 10-7-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. Sindhuja, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants were issued show cause notice for short-payment of service tax and after due process
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the appeal on the ground of limitation. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He furnished a copy of the letter by the concerned Commissionerate stating that Order-in-Original dated 25.3.2015 was dispatched by registered post to the appellant on9.4.2015. The acknowledgment also shows that the appellant has received the same. However, the appellant has filed the appeal with much delay of more than six months only on 12.10.2015. That the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal as being time-barred. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur – 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). 4. Heard both sides. 5. The
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ich shows the signature and stamp of the appellant. However, no date is endorsed by the appellant while receiving the copy of the order. In any case, when the order has been dispatched on 9.4.2015, the same ought to have been delivered to the assessee at Thiruvander Koil, Puducherry. It would take only a maximum of ten days. The O/o Assistant Commissioner as well as the address of the assessee is within Puducherry limits. Thus, it is seen that the contention of the appellant that they have not received the copy of the order and that they applied to the Assistant Commissioner on 28.9.2015 is not supported by any probable evidence. I am of the view the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. The dec
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =