TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at Zirakpur (Mohali) in Punjab. The activity of the petitioner-company is taxable service under the category of construction of complex services which have been made liable to Service Tax from 16-6-2005 vide notification dated 7-6-2005. As per the allegation of the Revenue, the petitioner-company provided the said services during the period from 1-7-2006 to 30-9-2007 without obtaining the requisite registration with the Department of Service Tax and failed to pay Service Tax amounting to Rs. 19,10,774/- in respect of value of Rs. 1,56,10,902/- received from the said services provided by them during the relevant period. 3. After issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner-company, to which reply was filed, the Joint Commissioner, C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been found as a fact that the order dated 2-1-2008 was sent by registered post, which was deemed to have been received by the petitioner-company in view of Section 37C of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner-company filed second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal where the petitioner-company filed the affidavit of the Director of the company stating that the petitioner-company did not receive the order dated 2-1-2008 any time before 14-8-2008. In response to that, the Revenue had also filed various documents indicating due service of the said order to the petitioner-company. The Tribunal vide order dated 18-4-2011 (Annexure P12), after considering all the material, remanded the matter back to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the 1st Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal. In view of the documentary evidence, both the Appellate Authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that the order dated 2-1-2008 was dispatched by registered post and the same was delivered to the petitioner-company on 3-1-2008. The delivery of the said order has not only been presumed but it has also been proved from the certificate of the Postal Department duly indicating that the said order was delivered to the assessee. It has been found as a fact that the address on which the said order was sent is admittedly correct and, therefore, the Appellate Authorities were fully justified that in view of Section 37C of the Act it is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period of 60 days, he may allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. Beyond the condonable period of 30 days the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay. In this regard, the Appellate Authority has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), wherein it was held as under :- "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period up to which the prayer for....