M/S. Samir Construction Company vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad

(Arising out of OIA-AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-114-14-15 dated 08.08.2014, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad)

M/s. Samir Construction Company : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : None For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 20.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11044/2015 Dated 20.07.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-114-14-15 dated 08.08.2014. Under this OIA the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant as time barred. None appeared on behalf of the appellant when the case was called out for hearing. There is also no request for adjournment from the appellant.

2. Shri J. Nagori (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 03.02.2014 against the OIO dated 13.02.2012, claimed to have been received by the appellant on 02.12.2013. That OIO dated 13.02.2012 was sent by RPAD at the same address where the show cause notice was sent. That in the year 2013, the assessee again asked for a copy of OIO despatched to them as per appellants letter dated 08.11.2013 and despatched at the same address. Learned AR made the Bench go through Para-6 of the OIA dated 08.08.2014 passed by the first appellate authority to argue that Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Mohan Bottling Co (P) Limited  [2010 (255) ELT 221 (P&H)] also held that a letter despatched to the declared address then sending of communication by RPAD is sufficient to establish delivery. He also relied upon a case law of CCE, Indore vs. Raj Kumar Aggrawal  [2012 (280) ELT 13 (MP)] wherein the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that issue of show cause notice by registered post within a period of six months is proper service of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Heard the learned AR. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the appeal filed by the appellant was correctly rejected as time-barred by the first appellate authority. Appeal filed by the appellant was received in the office of first appellate authority on 03.02.2014 against the OIO dated 13.02.2012. Appellant claimed to have not received the OIO dated 13.02.2012 and requested to supply another copy under letter dated 08.11.2013 which was supplied at the same address. It is observed from the case records that the show cause notice was issued at the known address of the appellant and the same was received by the appellant. The OIO was also sent by RPAD at the same address. No change in the address of the appellant was ever communicated to field formation/ adjudicating authority. In view of the above factual matrix, first appellate has correctly relied upon the case law of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Mohan Bottling Co (P) Limited (supra), that a letter sent by RPAF at the correct address was held to be proper deliver of communication. In this order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court case laws in the case of M.A. Mohammed Ismail vs. State of Tamil Nadu and in the case of V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu and Another.

4. In view of the above settled proposition of law, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL

3