TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been registered for providing the taxable service of manpower recruitment supply agency service. On the basis of third party information as was received from Income Tax Department, Service Tax liability of Rs. 4,83,539/- for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 was being proposed to be recovered from the appellant vide a Show Cause Notice No.2170-2172 dated 11.04.2018. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide the Order in Original as mentioned above alongwith the applicable interest and the proportionate penalties. 3. Being aggrieved, the order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected the appeal being barred by time. The appellant is, accordingly, before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard Shri Vijai Kumar, lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... There is no effort on the said adjudicating authority to ensure as to whether the order was actually received by the appellant or not. 8. Period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Commissioner is no doubt of 2 months but this period has to reckon not from the date of Order-in-Original i.e. the order challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), but from the date of receipt of said Order-in Original by the assessee. The valuable right of the assessee to seek a remedy by way of appeal cannot be forfeited based on mere presumptions and surmises. Appellant has placed on record the information as received under RTI Act. The said document is very well on record. Para 2 thereof reads as follows:- "OIO No.19/ST-Dem/2019 dated 18.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Resultantly, the impugned order in original cannot even be considered as "deemed to have been served" as mentioned in Section 37C (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. I, accordingly, hold that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has definitely erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation for want of the proper compliance of section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There has otherwise catena of decisions, I draw support from: 1. In Paliwal Glass Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2010 (259) ELT 74 (Tri. - Del.) it was held; "In absence of evidence that order sent to Assistant Commissioner, Agra was served on party, there is doubt about services of order. Delay must be condoned giving ....