Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
R.S.Vibrotech Engineers Pvt.Ltd vs Cce & St, Ghaziabad on 12 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI COURT NO. IV SINGLE MEMBER BENCH ST/Stay/52702/2014 in Appeal No. ST/52177/2014 (Arising out of OIA No. 215/2013-14 dt.20.1.14 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Ghaziabad) R.S.Vibrotech Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE & ST, Ghaziabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri G.K.Basu, Rep. for the Appellants Shri Devender Singh, JCDR the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision: 12.09.2014 FINAL ORDER No.53715/2014 Per MANMOHAN SINGH:
Shri G.K.Basu, Representative of the appellant alongwith Shri Rohit Sarin Director of the appellant appeared against the Order-in-Appeal No. 215/2013-14 dt.20.1.14 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Ghaziabad wherein their appeal was not admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of delay. They explained that the department has admitted that the Order-in-Original was sent in the normal course as per regular procedure, Order-in-Original should have been served by registered post or speed post. Further the department has not been able to prove that order was properly served on them and which was duly received by them. Later the appellant made application under RTI and the department vide their letter dated 13.3.2014 gave information which is reproduced below:-
1. The above subject order-in-original was sent through ordinary post to M/s.R.S.Vibrotech Engineers Pvt.Ltd.
2. Sent through ordinary post.
3. The above order was not received undelivered.
4. The certificate copy of the said O-I-O was supplied through speed post on 15.1.13 (photocopy of receipt enclosed). The said order was supplied on request of M/s.R.S.Vibrotech Engineers Pvt.Ltd. vide his letter dated 22.10.12.
2. Director of the company informed that they did not receive certified copy by the department. They have written a letter dt.2.12.2013 to the department to provide a certified copy of the order. Speed post letter was received after a gap of a year.
3. Ld.JCDR invited attention to their letter dated 15.3.2013 which was addressed to CPIO regarding acknowledgement of receipt of copy of the Order-in-Original and also intimating that the receipt was not enclosed with their letter. In pursuance to their letter the Assistant Commissioner informed that they have sent a copy of receipt by speed post.
4. Heard both sides and have gone through the records.
5. I find that there is a simple issue for consideration whether certified copy of the Order-in-Original was supplied to the appellant or not. Though, the appellant have contended that the certified copy of the Order-in-Original was not received by them. However, they were not able to produce any evidence that they have taken the matter with the department through written communication. Looking at gap of time which is almost one year, I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that that they were orally following matter with the department. Their further contention that the department later supplied a certified copy of Order-in-Original dated 2.12.2013, it does not self explained that certified copy was not sent by the department earlier. Appellants failed to show covering letter of the department or endorsement for perusal. I agree with the submission of the ld.JCDR that the appellant have not been convincingly able to prove that certified copy of the order was received late in filing a delayed appeal.
6. In view of above, I do not find force for modifying the Order-in-Appeal. Appeal is rejected. Stay application is also disposed of.
(dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
(Manmohan Singh) Member(Technical)
mk
3