TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant and Smt. Tamanna Alam, learned Departmental Representative for the Respondent. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had not appeared before the Original Adjudicating Authority and the order dated 25 March, 2014 was passed in his absence, as such, was never in his knowledge. This order was passed sanctioning the refund claim of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,05,715/- it is mentioned that, however, review petition was filed qua this order, but no notice of the same was ever received by the appellant. Due to which, he could not mark his presence before the competent authority and the order dated 30.01.2018 was passed ex-party. 3.1 It is further submitted that it is only after a demand of recovery was telephon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken up due to the reasons known to the appellant himself. Since there is no reason other than that RTI application, learned Commissioner has committed no infirmity or illegality while rejecting his appeal on the ground of limitation. The present appeal is, therefore, prayed to be rejected. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, I observe and hold as follows:- The refund claim of the appellant was sanctioned initially vide Order-in-Original No.25 dated 25.03.2014. Para 5 thereof specifically records that the submissions made by the claimant have been considered by the original adjudicating authority thereby proving that the appellant was given the due opportunity of hearing and the said order is not an ex-party order. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... once he was the party to those proceedings, the proceedings as well as order announced therein should very much be in his knowledge. There seems no cogent reason for the impugned RTI application except for gaining time that too to create/manipulate the sufficient reason for the impugned delay. 7. In the light of these observations, the arguments of appellant that the notice is shown to have been received by Manoj Srivastava whereas the owner of appellant is Mr. Aslam has no further relevance to extend any benefit to the appellant. 8. Keeping in view that there is a statutory mandate upon Commissioner (Appeals) to not to hear the appeal, which is filed beyond the period of 60 days extendable to another 30 days if sufficient cause for dela....