Page 241 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] GAYATRI PEST MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE 143
putting a slash and the same being substituted by numeral one. Admittedly, the
appellant had received not only the SCNs but three of the letters calling it upon
for the personal hearing despite neither the reply to the SCN was filed nor ever
the appellant appeared for making defence submissions before the authorities
below. Thus, it was the deliberate ignorance on the part of the appellant to not to
get the matter pursued. It is also impressed upon that once the issuance of SCN
was in the knowledge of the appellant, it was his duty to enquire the outcome
thereof. The conduct of appellant since beginning was negligent. The Appeal be-
fore Commissioner was filed with a delay of 9 months hence has rightly been
rejected being barred by limitation. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dis-
missed.
5. After hearing the parties, I observe that there is no dispute about fact
that the SCN was received by the appellant and he also received the notices to
join the investigation. Though it is the case of the appellant that the SCN and the
subsequent letters were served on the correct address of the appellant i.e. 28/10
Talawali Chanda, Dewas Naka, Indore (M.P.), I am of the opinion that once the
SCN which triggered the adjudication and the Order-in-Original was the out-
come for the same, it was incumbent duty of the appellant to follow the outcome
of the said SCN. There is no apparent effort on the part of the appellant. Per con-
tra, the perusal of the Order-in-Original is clear enough to show that despite re-
ceiving the SCN, the reply thereof was not filed. Also, despite receiving the no-
tices for personal hearing thrice for, the appellant never appeared before the orig-
inal adjudicating authority. The finding of adjudicating authority resultantly is as
follows :
“The notice did not bother to reply the SCN. In spite of repeated opportuni-
ties being provided by way of reminders and fixing date of personal hear-
ing. This in itself indicates that they don’t have any defence that can be put
forth against the action. In absence of any defence from the side of notice
the allegations leveled in SCN are naturally liable to be confirmed. Moreo-
ver, the figures of service tax liability shown in SCN are worked out on the
basis of records maintained, recovered from Noticee No. 1 premises and ac-
cepted by Noticee No. 2 in the statement recorded under Section 14 of the
Central Excise Act, 1944, hence not at all disputable.”
6. Coming to the order under challenge, I observe that the submission
as taken by the appellant before this Tribunal today was taken before Commis-
sioner (Appeals) as well, who has appreciated the pointed out defect in the ad-
dress as merely a typographical error by specifically holding that error is such a
small typographical mistake that it cannot be considered as wrong address. It has
also been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no evidence on rec-
ord that the copy of impugned adjudication Order dispatched has ever returned
to the Department undelivered. No doubt, that Section 37C mandates the proof
of delivery of the process served. But the settled and the basic law in this respect
is that the service stands complete if the process is sent by the registered post
with the acknowledgment due to the person for whom it is intended. As it was
held by the Tribunal Bangalore in the case of Gourav Food Products v. C.C.E., Bel-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  305