TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 praying for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Bench, Kolkata, as well as the order dated 05.01.2018 (communicated on 30.01.2018) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, in an appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Order-in-Original dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by way of making payment of their total tax liability as determined vide this Order within 1(one) month from the date of communication of this Order along with interest, as applicable thereon, and the amount of penalty equivalent to the extent of 25% of their total tax liability of Rs. 17,15,905/-. 4. Moreover, I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] only on the Noticee in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 on account of their failure to obtain Service Tax Registration and due to non-submission of ST-3 Return during the material period. 5. Moreover, I order for appropriation of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand] only already deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner (Appeals). 6. Ms. Gope has submitted that the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority is not tenable in law and there is no reason as to why the appellant would not prefer appeal within the period of limitation if the Order-in-Original was received, more so, when there is no provision for condonation of delay. It is submitted by her that the appellant was under the bonafide impression that after hearing the appellant, the authority might have been satisfied and, therefore, the show-cause notice issued earlier was dropped. She reiterates that the appellant did not receive the Order-in-Original though stand is taken by the department that the same is delivered to the appellant by a special messenger. If the date of receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant case. He has submitted that as the appellant had received the Order-in-Original, there is demonstrable laches and negligence on the part of the appellant and as the statute debars entertainment of any appeal after a period of 60 days along with grace period of 30 days subject to showing sufficient cause, when, admittedly, the appellant had filed the appeal after more than 7 years, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT were justified in rejecting the appeal as time-barred. He, however, candidly admits that the Order-in-Original was not despatched by registered post with A/D. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 9. A perusal of the Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Guwahati. Sd/- 15/7/10 (P.K. Bhattacharjee) Superintendent (Adjudication)" 10. It appears the Superintendent (Adjudication) had sent a letter C.No.V(15)21/ADJ/HQRS/GHY/09/3564 dated 15.07.2010 to the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), Gp.-1, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hqrs. Office, Guwahati, requesting him to cause personal delivery of the aforementioned Order-in-Original dated 14.07.2010 with acknowledgement and to send the receipt of acknowledgement to the office. The said document is available at page-53 of the appeal papers and there is an endorsement to the following effect:- "Received REGISTER WITH A/D C.No.V(15)21/ADJ/HQR/GHY/09/3564 RECEIVE ....