2025-VIL-44-CESTAT-DEL-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-44-CESTAT-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Limitation, Service of Order-in-Original, Presumption of Service under the General Clauses Act - The appellant, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original dated 25.01.2022, which confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as the appeal was filed beyond the period of 60 days + 30 days provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) can be condoned - HELD - the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for a period of 60 days + 30 days for filing the appeal. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the statute. The Tribunal observed that the present appeal was filed after a delay of more than 12 months from the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original, which is clearly beyond the statutory period - the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeal on the ground of limitation is dismissed - Whether the Order-in-Original was duly served on the appellant - HELD - the documentary evidence on record, which included the proof of service of the Order-in-Original, creates a presumption of proper service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Tribunal observed that the order was delivered at the same address where the show cause notice was received by the appellant, and the appellant's representative had also attended the personal hearing before the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal further noted that the appellant did not make any effort to know the status of the proceedings until the recovery notice was received, and even after receiving the copy of the Order-in-Original, the appellant did not file the appeal within the statutory period. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service, and the affidavit submitted by the appellant was not enough to falsify the documentary proof of service.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget, 2025
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?