TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Commissioner rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a provider of Construction of Residential Complex services. Following the receipt of intelligence of non-payment of Service Tax on customer advances by the appellant, a search was conducted on 21.09.2016. The reconciliation statements (2013-14 to 2016-17) revealed that the Appellant incorrectly claimed 75% abatement, whereas the rate was reduced to 70% effective 01.04.2016 via Notification No. 08/2016-ST. Despite multiple letters (January to September 2018, the appellant failed to provide ST-3 returns or Balance Sheets, forcing authorities to retrieve data from the Ministry for Corporate Affairs website. 2.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal was filed on 09.08.2019, which was within time. As per section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the provisions of section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are applicable for service tax matters so far as they relates to service of notice or order. As per section 37C(1)(a) an order can be sent to a recipient through speed post but it should also provide for proof of delivery'. In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has presumed that the order was delivered within 5 days of the date of dispatch. This cannot be accepted as there can be no case of presumption of service when the law specifically talks of "proof of delivery", and the department has not been able to furnish any proof of delivery. Courts have held that pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecember 2020 which went unaddressed by the appellant. 4.1 Learned Authorized Representative further contended that under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The proviso to Section 85(3A) restricts the Commissioner (Appeals) to allowing a further filing period of only one month, provided "sufficient cause" is shown. In the present case, the appeal was filed after 195 days well beyond the maximum allowable period of three months. As established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises us. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)] statutory authorities (like the Commissioner Appeals) are creatures of the statute and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Supercity Developers Pvt Ltd at 1st floor, 6 Bharti Artist Colony, Delhi-110092, correspondence in respect of M/s. Supercity Infratech Pvt Ltd was also being received at the same address. 7. It is stated that at the time of issuance of the show cause notice C.No. DL-1/ST/AE/Inq/Gr-V/271/2016 dated 18-10-2018 M/s. Supercity Infratech Pvt Ltd was having their office at 1st floor, 6 Bharti Artist Colony, Delhi110092. The show cause notice was duly received by M/s. Supercity Infratech Pvt Ltd on the said address. Similarly the Order-in-Original No. 01/PA/ADC/GST/DE/2019-20 dated 30-04-2019 was also addressed at the same location and was duly received by M/s. Supercity Infratech Pvt Ltd. However, when the appeal before the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 30.04.2019. The said order was handed over only on 02.08.2019. From the narration of the events above, it is evident that the appellant did not inform the original adjudicating authority regarding the change of address as it has been stated in the affidavit that the changed address was reflected only in ST-4 form. The responsibility on the Department was to establish proof of delivery at the address available on the departmental records at the time of despatch. 8. We find that the appellant's affidavit itself establishes that Order-in-Original was received by the occupant of the address. Consequently, we hold that the department has discharged the burden of establishing proof of delivery. The impugned order has correctly held that t....