9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Order-in-Appeal No.10/2014 (M-ST) dated 1.12.2014 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to decide the case on merit. 2. The case of the petitioner is that as against the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention, relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (273) ELT 345 (S.C) (Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd vs Masood Ahmed Khan), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its contentions and in the absence of any reasons given by the authority, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. The leared counsel also r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of three months, prescribed under Sec.85 of the Finance Act 1994. Further, the learned Standing Counsel relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R 187 (Mad) (Albert & Company Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai), wherein, the Division Bench of this Court, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner stating that the principles of natura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x, Chennai), I am of the view that the first respondent has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Since the first respondent does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months, as provided under Sec.85 of the Finance Act 1994, the first respondent has rightly dismissed the appeal. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
