Page 240 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

142 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Tamana Alam, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The appellant herein was served with a SCN No. 30753, dated
17-3-2016. After the Department observed the evasion of Service Tax on the part
of the appellant by suppressing the taxable value that the recovery alongwith
interest and the penalties was proposed vide the aforesaid SCN. The proposal
was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. 73, dated 31-5-2017. Being ag-
grieved thereof, an Appeal was preferred vide Order-in-Appeal No. 195-18-19,
dated 29-6-2018 that the same was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Being
aggrieved, the Appeal is before this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and
Ms. Tamana Alam, Ld. DR for the Department.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Order-in-Original
dated 31-5-2017 was never received by the appellant till a letter dated 7-2-2018
was given to the Department asking for the copy of the Order-in-Original. Thus,
the copy of the Order was received by the appellant on 8-2-2018 alongwith the
letter of the Department. It is thereafter that the Appeal was preferred before
Commissioner (Appeals) on 6-4-2018 i.e. well within the period of 60 days. It is
impressed upon that the reason for not receiving the original order was that the
Order was sent to the appellant at the wrong address. Address of appellant is
28/10 Talawali Chanda, Dewas Naka, Indore (M.P.). However, the Order-in-
Original was served upon 28110 Talawali Chanda, Dewas Naka, Indore (M.P.). It
is impressed upon that as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, the service
upon the noticee by speed post has to be accompanied with the proof of delivery
thereof and it is for the Department to prove the same. Since there is no proof of
delivery, the period of 60 days for preferring Appeal before Commissioner (Ap-
peals) has to reckon from the date of receipt of the Order i.e. 18-2-2014. It is sub-
mitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider the aspect that the
Appeal was well within the period of limitation from the date of receipt of the
Order. Still has dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation. The Order is
alleged to be beyond the statutory mandate. The appellant has relied upon vari-
ous case laws as follows : -
Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and 1 v. Union of India and 1 reported in 2017 (3)
TMI 557 (Gujarat).
Afloat Textiles (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Vapi reported in 2007 (7) TMI 444
(CESTAT, Ahmedabad).
Admannum Packagings Ltd. v. C.G.S.T., C.E., C.C., Indore reported in 2018
(7) TMI 259 (CESTAT, New Delhi).
Hence, the matter is prayed to be set aside with the request of remanding
back the same for being considered on merits.
4. While rebutting these arguments, it is submitted on behalf of the De-
partment that the address on which the Order-in-Original was served was the
same address as was mentioned in the SCN except with a typographical error of
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  304