TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no delay in the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), while challenging the Order-in-Original, dated 27.1.2011. Held that:- this court finds it appropriate to permit the assessee to prefer an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, dated 27.1.2011, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The assessee shall deposit 10% of the service tax demanded by the department, before the filing of the said appeal. It would be open to the assessee to prove, by sufficient evidence, before the Appellate Tribunal, that the appeal filed by the assessee, before the Commissioner of Appeals, was within the time limit prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the service tax levied on the assessee is not recoverable, as it has been exempted by virtue of Section 99 of the Indian Railways Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2013. 5. He had further submitted that there has been no real delay in the filing of the appeal, before the Commissioner Service Tax (Appeals)-II, as the assessee had received the impugned order only along with the order of the department, dated 2.12.2013. The dismissal of the appeal, by the Commissioner of Appeals, as time barred is erroneous and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 6. On the contrary the claim of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is that the assessee had received and acknowledged the receipt of the impugned order, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, on depositing 10% of the service tax demanded by the department, leaving it open to the assessee to show that in fact, there was no delay in the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), while challenging the Order-in-Original, dated 27.1.2011. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no serious objection for this court passing such an order. However, he had submitted that the assessee ought to comply with the conditions imposed by this court and to prove, by way of evidence, that the appeal filed by the assessee, before the Commissioner (Appeals), is within the limitation period prescrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
