9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous appeal has been directed against the order dated 20-7-2011 passed in Final Order No. 774/2011 by the first respondent. 2. The appellant is a cable TV operator in Aruppukottai. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax has issued a show cause notice and thereby directed the petitioner to pay a demand of Rs. 1,53,000/- towards Service Tax. On the basis of such order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant? (b) Whether the department is required to serve the Order-in Revision in the manner prescribed under Section 37C of the Act and is also required to prove due service in accordance with the said provision? (c) Whether the impugned order of the learned first respondent Tribunal is justifiable in rejecting the delay condonation petition in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved on behalf of assessee viz., the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the delay execution petition has been rightly dismissed and therefore, the impugned order passes by the first respondent does not require any interference. 6. As stated earlier, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the dismissal order passed by the first respondent. 7. The only po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been filed on the side of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner has received the order passed by the second respondent immediately after 24-2-2010. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and the substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellant are having substance. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
