Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Validity of Service Tax Order Upheld by Appellate Tribunal</h1> <h3>Greenview Land & Building Con. Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-II</h3> Greenview Land & Building Con. Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-II - [2012] 36 STT 371 (NEWDELHI - CESTAT) Issues: Validity of service of adjudication order and demand of service tax.In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the validity of the service of the adjudication order and the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,10,774. The appellant contended that the finding in the appellate order regarding the service of the adjudication order was baseless as there was no authorized person to receive it. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue officer had taken appropriate steps to serve the order, and there was no apparent laxity on the part of the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal observed that the registered letter was addressed correctly, and its delivery was confirmed by the postal department, establishing the bona fide actions of the Revenue officer.Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the judgments cited by the appellant, such as the Allahabad High Court case of R.K. Agarwal v. CESTAT and the Calcutta High Court case of Matigara Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd v. CCE. In the R.K. Agarwal case, it was noted that the petitioner had not authorized anyone to receive the order, unlike the present case where the appellant had an opportunity to do so. The Tribunal also distinguished the facts of the Matigara Rolling Mills case, where the factory was closed, from the current situation. Additionally, the Tribunal discussed the principle of presumption of service in the case of CCE v. R.R. Tea Co., emphasizing that the appellant failed to rebut this presumption with any cogent evidence.The Tribunal further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE v. Mohan Bottling Co (P.) Ltd., highlighting the importance of the assessee providing cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of service. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the service on an authorized person, factory closure, or rebuttal of the presumption. As a result, both the stay application and the appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal, as the appellant did not succeed in proving the invalidity of the service of the adjudication order.