2025-VIL-2136-CESTAT-ALH-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Appeal, Limitation period, Service of adjudication order - Based on third-party information, the Department issued a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax. An ex-parte order was passed confirming the demand. The appellant claimed that it was unaware of the order as it was served at an old address - The appellant later obtained a copy of the order and filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as barred by limitation - Whether the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation – HELD - When the complete copy of the adjudication order was not served on the appellant initially, the date of service could not be considered as 27.10.2023, when the incomplete copy was received. The date of service should be considered as 07.12.2023, when the appellant received the complete copy of the order - Unless the complete copy of the order containing the reasons is served on the assessee, the right to challenge the order does not crystallize – Further, since Section 85(3A) uses the expression ‘month’ in contrast to ‘days’, the two months period from 08.12.2023 elapsed on the corresponding date of corresponding month i.e. on 08.02.2024 and similarly the period of month under proviso to Section 85(3A) elapsed on 08.03.2024 i.e. the date on which the appeal was presented by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant was within the condonable period of one month beyond the two-month limitation period, and the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned – The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits - The appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page