9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, we find no such application has been enclosed in the typed set of papers or there is no reference in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was an application for condonation of delay. Even assuming that it is within the condonable period, in the absence of any such application seeking condonation of delay, we fail to see how the Commissioner (appeals) could entertain the appeal. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Internal Audit, the company's records were audited and it was found from the trial balance that the assessee had collected an amount of ₹ 92,57,001/- as hamaii charges and ₹ 8,29,777/- as handling charges for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2006. This income was not shown in the returns and had not paid service tax on the said amount. Hence, the Assessing Authority issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, as the same has been filed beyond the condonable period. As against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which upholds the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), relying on the decision reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) (Singh Enterprises V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur), wherein it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch application seeking condonation of delay, we fail to see how the Commissioner (appeals) could entertain the appeal. In fact, there was no application even before the Tribunal for the condonation of delay. Hence, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
