M/S Real Time Technology vs. The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the computation of the period of limitation for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should commence from September 1, 2017, the date on which the appellant undisputedly received a certified copy of the Order-in-Original. The Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT failed to consider this crucial aspect of the date of knowledge. The Court also noted that the Order-in-Original itself indicated dispatch by registered post with A/D, and it was unclear under what authority the Superintendent (Adjudication) altered the mode of service to a special messenger. The Court deemed it unnecessary to decide whether the signature on the delivery acknowledgment belonged to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal filed on October 10, 2017, was considered within the prescribed period of limitation. The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits.

Facts

The appellant, M/s Real Time Technology, is challenging orders from the CESTAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) which dismissed its appeal as time-barred. The dispute originates from an Order-in-Original dated July 14, 2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati. This order confirmed a demand of Service Tax, Education Cess, and Secondary & Higher Education Cess totaling Rs. 17,15,905, along with interest and penalties. The appellant claimed it did not receive the Order-in-Original until April 10, 2017, and obtained a certified copy on September 1, 2017, filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on October 10, 2017. The department contended the order was served personally on July 16, 2010.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within the prescribed period of limitation, considering the date of knowledge of the Order-in-Original (Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944)? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that it did not receive the Order-in-Original and only became aware of it upon receiving a letter dated April 10, 2017. It contended that if the date of receipt of the certified copy (September 1, 2017) is considered the date of knowledge, then the appeal filed on October 10, 2017, was within time. The appellant questioned the department's deviation from the prescribed mode of service (registered post with A/D) by using a special messenger. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the Order-in-Original was personally delivered on July 16, 2010, and that the appellant's delay of over 7 years demonstrated laches and negligence. They asserted that the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT were justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, as the statute does not provide for condonation of delay beyond the grace period.