TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roach for condoning the delay. Since the matter has been dismissed only on time barred aspect and not on merits, the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits. - Matter remanded back - ST/40529 - 40533/2015 & ST/40535 - 40539/2015 - Final Order No. 40543-40552 / 2016 - Dated:- 16-3-2016 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S. Mohan, AC (AR) ORDER Since the issue involved is common in all these appeals, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellant M/s. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., are 100% EOU engaged in providing Pre-publishing Services relating to E-Publishing and are reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these two impugned orders as above, the appellant assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. In respect of appeal Nos. C/40529 - 40533/2015, the Ld. representative, Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee submits that the delay in filing of appeals, statutory period is 60 days and the delay is only 28 days which is well within the condonable period. The Ld. Consultant further submits that w.e.f. 28.05.2012, the provisions have changed, prior to the amendment the appeal could have been filed within 60 days but w.e.f. 28.05.2012, the period for filing of appeal has been amended to 60 days. Since it was a recent amendment, the Consultant under the bonafide belief that the period for filing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Puducherry, wherein at para 2.3, he has observed that the orders passed by the CESTAT, Chennai, referred above have been accepted on 29.11.2013. The Ld. Consultant also filed a copy of the Hon ble Supreme Court order in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., UP Vs. CCE, Meerut - 2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB, wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has inserted the question as to whether the definition of the term Inputs include Rule 2 (g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, is to be understood to include items beyond the six items mentioned specifically in Rule 2 (g). The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:- We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have also read and considered the order dated 29th November ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were provisionally allowed either by the Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Honble Tribunal were subsequently banned /deleted from the list of services eligible for availing cenvat credit on input serices. He further submits that the earlier decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Hon ble Tribunal could not be the guiding proceedings in deciding the appeals. 8. After hearing both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to remand these appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits in view of the amendment to section 2 (l) w.e.f. 01.04.2011. I also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay of one month on showing the sufficient cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
