9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in levying Service Tax on the works undertaken by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the Original Order dated __.1/2014 passed by the 1st respondent for the period 2011-2012. Going by the petitioners own case, the order aforesaid challenged before us was unsuccessfully taken to the appellate authorities under statute successively and both these authorities refused to entertain the same as they were presented not only beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefor, but also beyond the condonable period. On identical fact and issue, we have delivered a judgment on 29.1.2015 in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2015 between M/s. Resolute Electronics Private Limited and Union of India, wherein, we have observed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Act, 1963 by virtue of Section 29(2) thereof, will not be applicable beyond 90 days. We are further of the view that once this period is allowed to expire intentionally or unintentionally, then remedy is absolutely barred and no Court of law can entertain the matter. However, the petitioner availed alternative remedy unsuccessfully, so we are not considering this aspect in great detail. The aforesaid conclusion of ours is in consonance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur , though we did not have the occasion to see the same. Para-8 of the said judgment is relevant for our purpose, which reads as follows: &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. Now, a copy of our judgment was supplied to the learned counsel for the appellant, who after considering the same submits citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others , that attempt to prefer appeal unsuccessfully before the appellate authority, does not preclude the petitioner from maintaining the writ as at present his client is remediless. We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
