TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty ₹ 3,40,63,905 and penalty of equal amount. In this case, at the time of hearing of the appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit a sum of ₹ 2 crores and 50 lacs. The applicants approached the Hon ble Delhi High Court and Hon ble Delhi High Court directed the applicants to depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... move for its withdrawal on the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 3. Ld.Counsel on behalf of the applicants submitted that the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue involved in this case. Ld. Counsel also submitted that, no doubt, that they had not raised this plea before the adjudicating authority. However, in view of the decision of the Hon ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also an admitted fact that the applicant had not taken any registration at the places where the service is provided. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that as the applicants has office at Delhi and they had not taken the registration at the place where the service provided. Therefore, the contention of the applicants is not tenable. No other issue is raised before us and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
