2019 (4) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces of cable operator. The Department during the scrutiny of records of M/s. Rajasthan Telematics Ltd. from whom the appellant was receiving signals observed that during the period w.e.f. 16.08.2002 to 31.03.2006 that M/s. Rajasthan Tele Matrix had raised bills upon the appellant on account of service being provided for receiving the cable signals from them for the onward re-transmission to their subscribers in Kota. However, the appellant has not discharged its service tax liability thereupon. Where-after show cause notice No. 14243 dated 19.10.2007 was served upon the appellant demanding serviced tax amounting to Rs. 65,827/- alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ought to notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the same has not been considered and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The appellant has relied upon the decision of DR Mangli vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2014 (54) STR 396 (Tri. Mumbai), impressing upon that the period of 3 months available to the Commissioner to condone the delay has to reckon from the date when the appellant actually receives the copy of order in original. Affidavit of the appellant has also been placed on record to this effect. Order accordingly prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Per-contra ld. DR has submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has no statutory power to condone the delay beyond ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inikbhaskar" dated 28 January, 2012 whereafter he made the deposit of the amount of service tax of 65,827/-. The absence of any effort to enquire about the orders in furtherance whereof the recovery proceedings as mentioned in the said Newspaper except a letter dated 13.02.2012 is not opined sufficient for condoning delay of almost 6 years. It is apparent that reminder to said application dated 13.02.2012 was given on 23.02.2016 i.e. after a gap of 3 years, same rather amount to be highly negligent act. 8. I also draw my support from the case law in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.) it is held as follows:- "10. Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It es....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal from the said submission appears to have been filed within the period of 90 days but as per Section 35 of Central Excise Act. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) can be filed within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. The proviso of the said Section allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone a delay of further period of 30 days if a sufficient cause from not presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days is shown to the Commissioner (Appeals). It becomes clear that even from the appellant's perspective the appeal was not filed within the said 60 days from the date of receipt of order. 10. From the above discussion, we are already of the opinion that there is no su....