TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This application filed by the Department (appellant) is for condonation of the delay of the appeal, which is against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 8 9/05 dated 28-3-05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. The impugned order was received by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (appellant) on 20-4-2005 and the appeal was filed on 29-5-06. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/2005 dt. 28-3-05 before CESTAT by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division-II 29-5-2006 The present application states that an issue similar to the one involved in the present appeal was pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court of Mumbai, which fact was not known to the Commissioner when he accepted the impugned order on 10-6-2005. The said fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred based on a finding that there was no explanation of delay of the appeal. In the cited case also, the Department had pleaded that the decision to file appeal against the impugned order had been taken on the basis of advice of the Chief Commissioner concerned. 2. After considering the submissions, we find that the impugned order was duly accepted by the appellant-Commissioner on 10-6-05 aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department. Hence, for the present appeal, there is no cause of action. Even otherwise, the plea raised by the appellants that the Chief Commissioner s letter advising his Commissioners to keep similar issues open was received only on 18-4-2006 and therefore, there was no occasion for filing appeal against the impugned order earlier cannot be of any aid to the Department in the present applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
