M\/s. National Oxygen Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1140 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
Appeal No. ST\/40540\/2018 – Final Order No. 41970\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nMs. Sindhuja, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants were issued show cause notice for short-payment of service tax and after due process of law, the original authority vide order dated 25.3.2015 confirmed the demand, interest and penalties. The appellant thereafter filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 12.10.2105 which was dismissed on the ground of tim<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 5.3.2015 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). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n en 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 decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) settles the law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delay beyond a period of one month. The impugned order does not call f<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. National Oxygen Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise PuducherryService Tax2018 (9) TMI 1140 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 10-7-2018Appeal No. ST\/40540\/2018 – Final Order No. 41970\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. Sindhuja, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts … Continue reading “M\/s. National Oxygen Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13838","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13838","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13838\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The grievance of the appellant is that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of being time-barred. The Order-in- Original is dated 25.3.2015. As per the time prescribed under the statute, the appeal ought to have been fi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n