Service Tax - review Order u/s 84 of Finance Act 1994

[chetan jadhav]

An adjudication order dropping the SCN under service tax for FY 16-17 and Q1 of 17-18 was passed on 29.11.2023. Subsequently, review order passed by commissioner on 27.03.2024 and appeal filed by Asst commissioner on 28.03.2024.

We challenged the review order on grounds of limitation since it was beyond 3 months from 29.11.2023 + no date or DIN on review order but Appellate authority rejected our claim and upheld the review order.

I need to understand meaning of term '3 month from date of communication' in section 84(2) of Finance Act 1994.

According to me, date of order should be taken as date communication due to following reason -

1. Adjudicating authority mark the CC of order to Dy Commissioner and hence the order was not actually communicated to Commissioner to review.

2. order was marked CC to NOTICE Board for general information of all stakeholder (This should cover the commissioner

3. Commissioner call for the order for review.....if 3 months are taken from the date of receipt of order by commissioner, it would means unlimited time for commissioner to call for the order and then review which will be against the intention of law maker

4. Office of the adjudicating authority, commissioner and Appellant authority situated in same building.

hence I believe, date of communication shall be the date of order of adjudicating authority and hence review order should have been passed before 29/02/2024 accordingly review order passed after prescribed time is time barred and invalid.

Can expert guide me in this ???

Any case law for my assistance ????

AI Summary

Service tax review order challenged for exceeding three-month limitation period under Section 84(2) Finance Act 1994 A taxpayer challenged a service tax review order passed on 27.03.2024, arguing it exceeded the three-month limitation period from the original adjudication order dated 29.11.2023. The taxpayer contended that 'date of communication' under Section 84(2) of Finance Act 1994 should be the order date since offices were co-located and the order was marked to the notice board. Legal expert advised that communication date refers to actual receipt by the review branch, not the order date or notice board posting. The expert confirmed that if the review order was time-barred, the subsequent departmental appeal would also be invalid, and suggested obtaining internal dispatch records through RTI to establish actual communication dates for challenging the limitation issue before CESTAT.