TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal rejected as time-barred due to appellant's non-appearance and failure to request adjournment.</h1> <h3>M/s. Samir Construction Company Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad</h3> The appeal was rejected as time-barred by the first appellate authority. The appellant failed to appear for the hearing or request an adjournment. The ... Condonation of delay - Non receipt of order - Whether the appeal filed by the appellant was correctly rejected as time-barred by the first appellate authority - Held that:- Appeal filed by the appellant was received in the office of first appellate authority on 03.02.2014 against the OIO dated 13.02.2012. Appellant claimed to have not received the OIO dated 13.02.2012 and requested to supply another copy under letter dated 08.11.2013 which was supplied at the same address. It is observed from the case records that the show cause notice was issued at the known address of the appellant and the same was received by the appellant. The OIO was also sent by RPAD at the same address. No change in the address of the appellant was ever communicated to field formation/ adjudicating authority. In view of the above factual matrix, first appellate has correctly relied upon the case law of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Mohan Bottling Co (P) Limited (2010 (5) TMI 169 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT), that a letter sent by RPAF at the correct address was held to be proper deliver of communication. - No reason to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Appeal rejection as time-barred by first appellate authority.Analysis:The appeal in question was filed against an OIA dated 08.08.2014, where the first appellate authority rejected it as time-barred. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, nor did they request an adjournment. The Revenue argued that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 03.02.2014 against an OIO dated 13.02.2012, which the appellant claimed to have received on 02.12.2013. The Revenue contended that the OIO was sent by RPAD to the same address where the show cause notice was sent, and the appellant requested another copy in 2013. The learned AR cited case laws to support the sufficiency of communication delivery through RPAD.The main issue in this case was whether the appeal was correctly rejected as time-barred. The appellant filed the appeal on 03.02.2014 against an OIO dated 13.02.2012, claiming non-receipt of the OIO and requesting another copy in 2013. The show cause notice was sent to the known address of the appellant and was received by them. The OIO was also dispatched by RPAD to the same address. No change in the appellant's address was communicated to the authorities. The first appellate authority relied on case law to establish that communication sent by RPAD to the correct address constitutes proper delivery. The judgment cited precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court to support this conclusion.Considering the settled legal proposition and the facts of the case, the judge found no reason to interfere with the first appellate authority's order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
