ORDER (ORAL) T. Nandakumar Singh Heard Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the appellate tribunal dated 11.07.2014 dismissing the appeal being No.ST/A/70356/2013 only on the ground that the appeal filed by the present appellant is barred by limitation. 3. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present appeal is noted. The appellant was seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.7,73,530 imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 and also penalty (not qualified) under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the order in original dated 17.08.2010 was furnished to the appellant on 19.01.2011. The order for furnishing the original copy dated 17.08.2010 reads as follows:- Government of India MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MORELLOW COMPOUND M.G.ROAD, SHILLONG-793001 ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.09/JOINT COMMISSIONER/ST/2010 DATED SHILLONG, THE 17th August, 2010 (PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG 1. This copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued. 2. Any person deeming himself aggrieved by this Order may appeal against the order of the Joint Commissioner to the Commissioner (Appeals). Customs and Central Excise, Nilman Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005, in FORM-EA-I within sixty days from the date of personal service on, or the date of receipt by post by the party. It should bear a court fee stamp worth Re.1.00. It must be accompanied by:- (a) Copy of the Order (b) This copy of the order or another copy of the order which must bear a Court Fee Stamp as below:- Rs.0.75 paisa Subject: In the matter of show cause notice issued to M/s Rani Motors (authorized Maruti Dealer) Nongthymmai Jelly’s Shop, Shillong-793014 Meghalaya DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS I have carefully gone through the case records and the submission made by the Noticee in the course of personal hearing. It is alleged that the Noticee have not obtained Service tax Registration and provided taxable service in the category Business Auxiliary Service. It is also alleged that the Noticee have not declared the taxable value and not paid Service Tax in suppression of materials facts. It is alleged that the Noticee have not obtained Service tax Registration and provided taxable service in the category Business Auxiliary Service. It is also alleged that the Noticee have not declared the taxable value and not paid Service Tax in suppression of materials facts. The Noticee, also have not disputed the allegation rather admitted and made payment of Service Tax including interest before the show cause notice has been issued. On examination of the records available I find the allegations have been substantiated on the basis of the evidences brought on record during investigation. I, therefore find the charges framed in the show cause notice are well founded and justified. I also find that the Noticee have not obtained registration in the category of Business Auxiliary Service and not made payment of due Service Tax within the period prescribed in the relevant Section of the Finance Act. Accordingly, I hold the Noticee have contravened the provision of Section 66, 67, 68, 69, of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 91 and 95 of the Finance Act, 2004 read with rule 6 of Service Tax, Rules 1994 for which they have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. I further find that the Noticee have not filed the Service Tax return for the services provided under Business Auxiliary Service within the prescribed period and therefore they have rendered themselves liable for penal action under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of the discussion and findings above, I pass the following order. ORDER 1. I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 7,58,362/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred and sixty) only and Education Cess amounting to Rs. 15,168/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand and one hundred sixty eight) in terms of proviso to the Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Noticee have already paid the amount, I order appropriation of the amount, so paid, towards the demand confirmed. 2. I order the Noticee to pay interest, as accrued, at the rates applicable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Noticee have paid interest, I order appropriation of the amount so paid towards the interest as accrued. 3. 2. I order the Noticee to pay interest, as accrued, at the rates applicable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Noticee have paid interest, I order appropriation of the amount so paid towards the interest as accrued. 3. I impose penalty @2% on the outstanding tax per month on the Noticee starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of Service Tax under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. I also impose a penalty Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only on the Noticee under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. I further impose a Penalty of Rs. 7,73,530/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs seventy three thousand five hundred thirty) only on the Noticee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Sd/- (S.P Chakraborty) Joint Commissioner (Tech) C. No. V-ST-21/ADJ/2009/1058-61 Dated: 17/8/10 To, M/s Rani Motors (Authorized Maruti Dealer) Nongthymmai, Jelly’s Shop Shillong – 793014 Sd/- (S.P Chakraborty) Joint Commissioner (Tech) C. No. V-ST-21/ADJ/2009/1058-61 Dated: 17/8/10 Copy for information to:- 1. The Commissioner Central Excise, Shillong. 2. The Additional Director, DGCEI, Kolkata Zonal Unit4/2, Karaya Road, Kolkata-700017 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Shillong Division. Sd/- (S.P Chakraborty) Joint Commissioner (Tech)” 4. Against that order dated 17.08.2010, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Sub-Section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that an appeal shall be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of the Central Excise Officer, relating to service tax, interest or penalty under this Chapter: provided that the Collector of Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents by referring to the said proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 strenuously contended that the limitation period of three months for filing the appeal against the order can be extended for a further three months that too only when the Collector of Excise (Appeals) satisfied that the appellant was prevented for sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within 3 (three) months. Mr. Mr. R Deb Nath, further contended that even if the appellant is prevented for sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the limitation period of three months, the Collector of Excise (Appeals) can extend the period of limitation to the extent of only three months. Since the impugned order was passed on 17.08.2010, the said appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation inasmuch as, the said appeal was filed after the expiry of six months from the date of passing the order i.e. 17.08.2010. 5. Now, the question to be decided in the appeal filed by the appellant before the Collector of Excise (Appeals) is as to whether the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of receiving the copy of the original order or from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order dated 17.08.2010. Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to the said order dated 17.08.2010 contended that the appeal could not be filed against the original order i.e. un-certified copy furnished by the Commissioner under the letter dated 17.08.2010 and it was only for private use. Therefore, the appellant filed the application for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 17.08.2010, which must bear a court fee stamp for filing appeal. He further contended that the original order i.e. un-certified copy furnished under the said letter dated 17.08.2010 did not bear a court fee stamp. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2014, without giving any reason had come to the findings that “I do not find force in the argument of the learned FCA for the appellant. Since the order was communicated to them on 19.01.2011, the appeal could have been filed on the basis of such order”. The said findings cannot be read harmoniously with the portion of the said letter dated/order dated 17.08.2010 – “this copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued” and Para 2 (b) “this copy of the order or another copy of the order which must bear a court fee stamp”. Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court and other High Courts had already taken the view that the appeal could be filed against the certified copy of the order. Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court and other High Courts had already taken the view that the appeal could be filed against the certified copy of the order. This Court is not deciding this point. 6. In the above factual backdrop, the appeal i.e. No.ST/A/70356/2013 is remitted back to the tribunal to decide the issue indicated above. For enabling the tribunal to decide the issue indicated above, the impugned order dated 11.07.2014 is hereby set aside. 7. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of.