Tribunal Remands Case for Reconsideration Due to Improper Service; Orders Reassessment Within Four Months.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration on its merits. It was determined that the original order was not properly served to the appellant, as the dispatch via speed post was not proven to be received, and the employee who received the order did not notify the appellant. The Tribunal instructed that the case be reassessed with a reasonable opportunity for a hearing within four months. The appeal was thus allowed, taking into account the appellant's arguments regarding service and the limitation period during the COVID pandemic.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal against Order-in-Original rejection on the ground of limitation.

Summary:
The appellant provided services for motor vehicles and other services against various commissions. The appellant was alleged to have not declared and discharged service tax, resulting in a proposed recovery amount. The appeal against the order was rejected due to being filed after the limitation period. The appellant claimed they never received the original order until a recovery notice was received, which prompted them to request details from the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of receiving the order. The appellant argued that the major period after the original order was during the COVID Pandemic, which should be excluded from the limitation period. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal without providing a personal hearing.

The appellant argued that the order should be set aside as it was only received upon the recovery notice, and the period during the pandemic should be excluded from the limitation calculation. The appellant also contended that serving notice to an employee was not in compliance with the Central Excise Act. The appellant requested the order to be set aside and the appeal to be allowed.

The Department rebutted, stating that the notice was duly served on the appellant through an employee, and there was no issue with the calculation of the limitation period. The Department relied on the proof of service to the appellant as per statutory mandates. The Department argued that the order was sustainable, and the appeal should be dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the original order was served through two modes, one being speed post and the other to an employee of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the mere dispatch of the order through speed post does not constitute service. The appeal period should start from the date of receipt by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the order sent by speed post was not proven to be received. The employee who received the order failed to bring it to the appellant's notice, as confirmed by affidavits. The appellant only became aware of the order upon receiving the recovery notice. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits after providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing within four months.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further consideration on the merits of the case.

---