CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
STAY PETITION NO.ST/S/70304/2013
AND
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.ST/A/70356/2013
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.02/SH/CE(A)/GHY/13 DATED 05.03.2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),GUWAHATI)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
M/S. RANI MOTORS
(AUTHORISED DEALER OF MARUTI UDYOG LTD.)
APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, SHILLONG
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRIMATI SHRUTI PRADHAN, FCA FOR THE APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S);
SHRI ANIRUDDHA ROY, A.R.(SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE.
CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date of Hearing & Decision:11.07.2014
ORDER NO.FO/A/75408/2014
This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs.7,73,530/- imposed under Section 78; penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77; and also penalty(not quantified) under Section 76, of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. At the outset, ld. FCA, Smt. Shruti Pradhan appearing for the Applicant submits the entire amount of service tax along with the interest, had already been paid before issuance of the show cause notice. She submits that even though the Order-in-Original was dated 17.08.2010, it was communicated to them only on 19.01.2011, the certified copy of which was issued to them on 04.04.2011 and the appeal was filed by them on 16.05.2011 before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). She also submits that the date of issuance of the certified copy be reckoned as the date of communication, and hence, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Ld. AR, Shri Aniruddha Roy appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that initially the Applicant were communicated the Order-in-Original through Speed Post on 18.08.2010, which was received by them on 19.08.2010. He also submits that at the request of the Applicant, it was again handed over to them on 19.01.2011. It is his submission that the date of communication should be considered as 19.08.2010 and not 19.01.2011, the least 04.04.2011.
4. After hearing both sides for some time, I find that the present Appeal itself could be disposed off, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the Appeal is taken up for disposal. I find that the limited issue involved in the present case for determination is whether the appeal filed before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation or otherwise. It is the claim of the Appellant that even though they were communicated with the Order-in-Original on 19.01.2011 by hand-delivery; but the certified copy was received by them on 04.04.2011. Therefore, the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned Order-in-Original be considered as the date of communication of the Order and the limitation should start from that date. I do not find force in the argument of the ld. FCA for the Appellant. Since the Order was communicated to them on 19.01.2011, the appeal could have been filed on the basis of such Order, and it cannot be construed that the date of communication of the certified copy thereof, be considered as the date of communication for the purpose of computation of the time-limit of three months, as prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the result, I do not find merit in the present Appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Stay Petition accordingly, stands disposed.
(Pronounced & dictated in the open court.)
SD/-11.07.14
(D.M.MISRA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DUTTA/
3
ST/A/70356/2013
3
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
STAY PETITION NO.ST/S/70304/2013
AND
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.ST/A/70356/2013
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.02/SH/CE(A)/GHY/13 DATED 05.03.2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),GUWAHATI)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
M/S. RANI MOTORS
(AUTHORISED DEALER OF MARUTI UDYOG LTD.)
APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, SHILLONG
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRIMATI SHRUTI PRADHAN, FCA FOR THE APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S);
SHRI ANIRUDDHA ROY, A.R.(SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE.
CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date of Hearing & Decision:11.07.2014
ORDER NO.FO/A/75408/2014
This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs.7,73,530/- imposed under Section 78; penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77; and also penalty(not quantified) under Section 76, of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. At the outset, ld. FCA, Smt. Shruti Pradhan appearing for the Applicant submits the entire amount of service tax along with the interest, had already been paid before issuance of the show cause notice. She submits that even though the Order-in-Original was dated 17.08.2010, it was communicated to them only on 19.01.2011, the certified copy of which was issued to them on 04.04.2011 and the appeal was filed by them on 16.05.2011 before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). She also submits that the date of issuance of the certified copy be reckoned as the date of communication, and hence, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Ld. AR, Shri Aniruddha Roy appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that initially the Applicant were communicated the Order-in-Original through Speed Post on 18.08.2010, which was received by them on 19.08.2010. He also submits that at the request of the Applicant, it was again handed over to them on 19.01.2011. It is his submission that the date of communication should be considered as 19.08.2010 and not 19.01.2011, the least 04.04.2011.
4. After hearing both sides for some time, I find that the present Appeal itself could be disposed off, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the Appeal is taken up for disposal. I find that the limited issue involved in the present case for determination is whether the appeal filed before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation or otherwise. It is the claim of the Appellant that even though they were communicated with the Order-in-Original on 19.01.2011 by hand-delivery; but the certified copy was received by them on 04.04.2011. Therefore, the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned Order-in-Original be considered as the date of communication of the Order and the limitation should start from that date. I do not find force in the argument of the ld. FCA for the Appellant. Since the Order was communicated to them on 19.01.2011, the appeal could have been filed on the basis of such Order, and it cannot be construed that the date of communication of the certified copy thereof, be considered as the date of communication for the purpose of computation of the time-limit of three months, as prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the result, I do not find merit in the present Appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Stay Petition accordingly, stands disposed.
(Pronounced & dictated in the open court.)
SD/-11.07.14
(D.M.MISRA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DUTTA/
3
ST/A/70356/2013
3
No comments:
Post a Comment