2026-VIL-1812-CESTAT-ALH-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1812-CESTAT-ALH-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Service of Order-in-Original by affixture on registered premises and date of receipt for computing limitation for appeal - Adjudicating authority confirmed demand of service tax with interest and penalties, and the order sent by registered post to the registered address was returned undelivered, after which it was served by affixture on the registered premises under a panchnama - Appellant contended that the order was never received, that it became aware of the order only on a later date when it visited the office and obtained an uncertified copy, that the date of receipt should be that date, and that the copy of the panchnama was not provided - Whether the order was duly served on the Appellant on the date of affixture so as to reckon limitation from that date - HELD - The Appellant had a registered premises and the same address was mentioned in the appeal memos before the FAA and the Tribunal, in the challans for payment of pre-deposit and in the orders sent to it, and even the subsequent order in appeal sent by post was returned undelivered. The letter of the jurisdictional officer reporting service by affixture under a panchnama is an admissible piece of evidence, and the FAA cannot be faulted for presuming the correctness of the facts stated therein. As the order was served by affixture on the registered premises which the Appellant continued to hold, there is no reason to believe that the order was not served or received - The contention of non-receipt is rejected and the order is held to be served on the date of affixture - Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the FAA beyond the period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appeal against the order was filed several months after the date of service of the order, and the FAA dismissed it as time barred since the proviso permits condonation only for a further period of one month - Appellant contended that the appeal should be allowed on the ground of non-supply of the panchnama - Whether the delay beyond the further period of one month can be condoned - HELD - Section 85(3A) requires the appeal to be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the order, and the proviso empowers the FAA to allow presentation within a further period of one month on sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellate authority, being a creature of statute, has no power to condone delay beyond the period provided in the proviso, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is completely excluded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that a liberal approach cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation, and that no indulgence is warranted where the appeal is filed long after the statutory period without substantiating the plea of inability to file within time - The appeal being filed much beyond the condonable period was rightly dismissed as time barred, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

57th GST Council Decisions...
By CA 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

Security-Code
New Code?

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.

Security-Code
New Code?

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?