TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tokai Imperial Hydraulics India Pvt. Limited, the appellant herein, is registered with the service tax department being engaged in providing the taxable services. During the course of audit and scrutiny of ST-3 returns of the appellants and while reconciliation of the tax dues for the half years paid through challans, the department observed the short payment of service tax by the appellant for the Financial year 2015-16 to June 2017 as recipient of services, under Reverse Charge mechanism. The appellant was observed to have short paid the service tax amounting to Rs.1,36,361/-. The appellants vide their reply dated 28.11.2018 to the department's letter dated 12.11.2018 had accepted aforesaid contentions of the auditors, however had failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requested for the copy of Order-in- Original dated 16.07.2020 vide its letter which was received by the department on 18.07.2022 and the copy was received on 04.08.2022. Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while ignoring that the appeal filed on 28.09.2022 is well within the period of 60 days from 04.08.2022. Hence is wrongly held to be barred by time. Order is accordingly prayed to be set aside. It is submitted that proof of delivery of order is important following decisions have been relied upon to impress upon that proof of delivery of order is relevant. In absence thereof there cannot be any presumption that the order was delivered as it was dispatched. (i) Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. and Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and had also acknowledged to have accepted those contentions. After the said reply the appellant avoided filing any reply to the show cause notice. The appellant even failed to appear before the original adjudicating authority despite reasonable opportunity was awarded to the appellant. It is also submitted that there is no mention even before Commissioner (Appeals) that the Order-in-Original was never received by the appellant. Para A.3 grounds of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) has been referred. 4.1 It is finally submitted that there is no evidence about the date of knowledge being 04.08.2022. In the light of these circumstances, the case law relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the present set of circumstances. Imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved chronology of date and events: Date Events Oct-Nov 2018 Audit was conducted 12.11.2018 The letter vide which the audit objections were conveyed to the appellant at the appellant's place of Business. 28.11.2018 The appellant's letter acknowledging the contention of the auditors and submitting that they have reversed the amount of Rs.1,36,361/- in their GSTR-3B return filed for the month of November 2018. 16.04.2019 Finding no such reversal and observing the short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.1,36,361/- that the show cause notice was served upon the appellants. 22.05.2019 21.06.2019 10.12.2019 The letters affording personal hearing to the appellant. 16.07.2020 The ex parte Order-in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice and accordingly had requested for the copy of Order-in-Original dated 16.07.2020. But there is still no evidence about the date of the said demand notice. It is difficult to presume that demand notice pursuant to order dated 16.07.2020 would have been served after a period of two years. Since these pleas were never raised before Commissioner (Appeals) not even the aforesaid letter having the receipt date of 18.07.2022 was ever brought to the notice of Commissioner (Appeals). As already observed above, no plea at all was taken before Commissioner (Appeals) about receiving the Order-in-Original on 04.08.2022. These observations reflects lack of due diligence on part of the appellant. The plea of 04.08.2022 to be the date of receiving ....