2010 (6) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In all these cases appeals have been rejected on the ground that appellants have failed to file the appeals within a period of 60 days as prescribed under the law. The issue involved is refund of service tax used for manufacturing goods which were exported and refund admissible as per notification No. 41/200-S.T., dated 6-10-200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the order in original in this case has been correctly worded. I am not able to get convinced by this argument. Admittedly, Central Excise Assistant Commissioner also has jurisdiction over service tax matters where there is no separate Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner for service tax. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Original Adjudicating Authority to ensure that preamble .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ases, the provisions of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, would be applicable. I also hold that the Original Adjudicating Authority should have issued the preamble applicable to the service tax matters. 2. Another point that I noticed is that Commissioner has calculated 90 days whereas Section 85 speaks of three months. Therefore, the calculation itself is made in an incorrect manner. It is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X