TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion received through third parties, the appellant was asked for reasons for not paying service tax.. The service provider/ appellant vide letter dated 16.06.2016 (received on 20.07.2016) submitted that they were providing Tata Tauras Tippers (earth moving equipment's) to various parties on rent as per contracts. They further submitted that they were engaged with only two companies namely M/s Isolux Corsan and M/s Vajra Ir tra Projects Ltd. They contended that in the work orders of both the companies, it was mentioned that Service Tax was to be paid by the service recipients and therefore the appellants were not liable for payment of Service Tax. They also submitted an affidavit dated 22.06.2016 and sample copies of contracts with these comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant submitted That the appellant in its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had stated that they had received the order in original dated 27.03.2019 on 10.01.2020. But commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that on the order in original was received by appellant's advocated namely Kuldeep Jalan on 31.05.2019. Ld. Counsel submitted that Shri Kuldeep Jalan was never authorized by the appellant to be his representative or to receive the copy of Order in Original. The appellant had engaged advocate namely Shri Amit Dave, who only appeared for Personal Hearing in response to the Show Cause Notice during the adjudication proceedings and reference is there in O-I-O in para 13 thereof. The appeal before commissioner appeals was filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissionerate. It reads as follows: - As reported by the JRO, the OIO could not be delivered at the given address since the addressee was not residing in the said village and was stated to be living outside. In view of the non-availability of the notice at the registered address, the Order was served upon Shri Kuldeep Jalan, Advocate, who is the authorized representative of the notice (Acknowledgement letter enclosed). It is further reported that Shri Kuldeep Jalan had earlier represented the notice during the course of investigation and had also submitted certain documents on his behalf. Hence, service of the Order upon him was considered appropriate. 9. Along with the report is a written acknowledgment of Kuldeep Jalan for rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on records to falsify the same. The appeal in hand was filed before commissioner (Appeals), admittedly on 12.03.2020. In terms of section 85 (3 A) of finance Act, 1994, it should have been filed within two months on date of receipt of the order challenged. The date of receipt, in the light of above observations is 10.01.2020. Hence, the appeal against O-I-O dated 27.03.2019, received by appellant on 10.01.2020 should have been filed on or before 12.03.2020. Thus, it is clear that the appeal filed on 12.03.2020 is delayed by 2 days. The same provision (section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994) empowers Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the period of 30 days over above the said of two months. But appellant did not appear before him and did not pl....