TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals filed by the appellant against the orders-in-original no.3/CPG/08 dated 18.02.08 and no.20/S.L. Meena/2009 dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Service Tax as time barred without going into the merits of the case, on the ground that delay in filing of the appeals is far beyond the period of 30 days, which the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone. In respect of Appeal No.ST/58198/2013-ST (SM) filed against the above mentioned order-in-appeal where the Revenue involved is Rs. 45,65,720/-, the Tribunal vide stay order no.58528/2002 dated 19.07.2013 has admitted the appeal and allowed the stay application with directions that recovery of the remaining amount of penalty and interest shall remain stayed till the dispos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the file, the assessee's copy of the said OIO was forwarded by Superintendent (Adjuidcation), Hqrs. Vide letter C.No.IV(16) Hqrs./Adjn./MIA/157/ST/07/1907 dated 22.04.2009 for delivery but the same remained undelivered with the remarks that the said office is not available at the address mentioned. Recovery letters were issued on 12.01.2012 & 15.06.2012. However, letter dated 15.06.2012 returned undelivered with the remarks 'Left'. The file was transferred from Range 17 to Range 20 on 20.07.2012. After obtaining the other addresses of M/s. Marketing Times Automobiles, the order-in-original (partys copy) was sent to their address at - 18, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-II, New Delhi on 26.07.2012. (Copy of Speed Post receipt enclosed)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 11.07.2009 denied having received letter dated 3601 dated 26.03.2009 and stated that they have never received O-I-O No.03/CPG/2008 dated 18.02.2008. The party was advised to approach Adjudication Branch of Hqrs. Office on 30.07.2009 for copy of subject OIO. Reminders for recovery were sent on 15.09.2009, 14.12.2009, 07.06.2010, 01.07.2010, 15.02.2011, 17.06.2011, 15.12.2011, 20.06.2012. Meanwhile, reminders were also sent to Supdt. (Adjudication) on 11.07.2012 and 19.09.2012 by Range and Assistant Commissioner on 21.01.2013 for supply of the said O-I-O to the party too. Party vide their letter dated 28.01.2013 has again denied having received letter dated 3601 dated 26.03.2009 and O-I-O No.3/CPG/2008 dated 18.02.2008. M/s. Mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me premises. He further pleaded that from this report, it is clear that none of these orders had been communicated to the appellant, that the Department's contention that the appellant had actually been served the impugned orders at the time of issuance thereof is factually incorrect and that in view of this, the impugned order dismissing both these appeals as time barred without going into the merits is not correct. 4. Ms. Suchitra Sharma, ld. Joint CDR, supported the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that the appellant had changed their address for communication sometime, in the year, 2007, but informed the department about the same only in 2009, that even after shifting, they co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirming the service tax demand of Rs. 27,52,597/- had been issued by the Addl. Commissioner on 31.03.2009. The appeals against these orders have been filed before the (Appeals) on 13.03.2009 and according to the appellant, since both these orders were received on 2.3.2013, there is no delay in filing of the appeals. The department's stand is that these orders had been received by the appellant much earlier and as such, the delay in filing of the appeals is far beyond the condonable limit of 30 days. According to the department, after being intimated about the appellant's new address, while the order-in-original dated 31.03.2009 had been dispatched by speed post on 26.12.2012 and it has to be presumed that the same was received as the same ....