TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urely on the grounds of limitation without going into the merits of the case. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the purpose are: 3. Based on the data received from the Income Tax Department for the Financial Year 2012-13, the revenue department observed that the appellant had received payment of Rs.4,18,58,358/- upon which the TDS was deducted under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly the department alleged that the appellant was providing taxable services as defined under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, service tax amounting to Rs.51,73,693/- was not paid by the appellants. The appellant was required to furnish the financial documents vide letter dated 15.04.2018. However, no response was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019. Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 02.12.2019 which was well within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The statutory burden to prove the valid services was upon the department. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decision: a. Dinesh Kumar Choudhary v. CGST, Jaipur, Service Tax Appeal No. 51393 of 2019 decided on 05.06.2026. b. Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Supreme Court). Civil Appeal No. 5631-5632 of 2015 c. CPS Security Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST. Passed by CESTAT, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 8. Having heard both the parties, we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) while invoking section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 has held as follows: "This analysis reveals that the appellants did not file appeal within the stipulated time period. I find that the appeal against the impugned order dated. 26.12.2018, which was duly received by the appellant, has been filed on 02.12.2019 i.e. after a period of 11 months which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. 10. In view of above discussion and findings, the appeal is rejected on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case and accordingly, the impugned order is upheld." 9. When the order-in-orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter also by virtue of section 83 of the Finance Act, the provisions reads as follows: "37C. (1) Service of decisions, order, summons, etc. (a) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served,- (a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered past with acknowledgement due or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any. (b) If the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffixing a copy thereof, on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision, order or issued such summons or notice Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, also in the case AMIDEV AGRO CARE PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2012 (6) TMI 304 BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Order is to be served on the assessee or his agent by Registered Post A.D. or any other mode specified in section 37C and mere proof of dispatch of order is not sufficient compliance of the section. Otherwise also it is not merely the dispatch of process through Registered post with AD but the affixation if there is no proof of delivery, at the places as mentioned in sub clause (b) & (c) of section 37C, of Central Excise Act which complet....