Page 239 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1
P. 239

2020 ]  GAYATRI PEST MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE 141
               ground of time bar is unjustified. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim
               is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
                                 (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

                                                _______

                              2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 141 (Tri. - Del.)

                          IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
                                           [COURT NO. IV]
                                     Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
                          GAYATRI PEST MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.
                                                Versus
                              COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE
                      Final Order No. A/50674/2019-SM(BR), dated 15-3-2019 in Appeal
                                         No. ST/53252/2018-SM
                       Adjudication - Duty of assessee - Show cause notice (SCN) and notice
               to join investigation received by assessee - Incumbent duty of assesse to fol-
               low outcome of SCN. [para 5]
                       Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Service of adjudica-
               tion order - Contention that order sent to wrong address and order dated 31-5-
               2017 not received till 8-2-2018 when copy of Order received by assessee pursu-
               ant to its request - HELD : Defect in address typographical error and Commis-
               sioner (Appeals) correctly held that small typographical mistake could not be
               considered as wrong address - Service stands complete if process sent by regis-
               tered post with acknowledgment due to person for whom intended - Mere ty-
               pographical error that too of merely one slash being substituted by numeral
               one with rest of address being same cannot lead to presumption that postal
               services will not  be  in position to make out said error - That assessee had
               knowledge of order discerned from its letter to Department - Mandate of pro-
               cedural law of limitation must be given full effect if apparent mala fide or neg-
               ligence on assessee’s part existed  - Dismissal of  appeal not interfered with.
               [2014 (304) E.L.T. 751 (Tribunal); 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) relied on]. [paras 6, 7, 8,
               9]
                                                                       Appeal dismissed
                                             CASES CITED
               Admannum Packagings Ltd. v. Commissioner
                    — 2018 (7) TMI 259 (CESTAT, New Delhi) — Referred ............................................................. [Para 3]
               Afloat Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner
                    — 2007 (7) TMI 444 (CESTAT, Ahmedabad) — Referred .......................................................... [Para 3]
               Gourav Food Products v. Commissioner — 2014 (304) E.L.T. 751 (Tribunal)
                    — Relied on ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 6]
               N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy — 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.)
                    — Relied on ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 8]
               Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (3) TMI 557 (Gujarat)
                    — Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 3]
                                    GST LAW TIMES      2nd April 2020      303
   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244