Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Benson Gourmet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-I

2016 (9) TMI 428 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Condonation of delay – outdoor catering services – infirmities in the quantification of demand - rectification of mistakes sought by filing ROM petition - Section 74 of the Act - non-service of ROM order – Held that: - rejection order of ROM was not served on the appellant or their authorized signatory, though it was furnished to the person who was not authorized signatory of appellant - the time taken from the date of impugned order till receipt of rejection of ROM order has been satisfactorily .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nation of delay of 1188 days each in filing the respective appeals. The impugned order is dated 18.11.2012 and the appeal should have been filed before Tribunal on or before 17.02.2013. However, the appeals were filed before Tribunal on 20.05.2016 thereby causing a delay of 1188 days. 2. Shri G. Natarajan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that appellant is a provider of taxable service of outdoor catering service. There were two show cause notices issued against the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ification of mistake apparent in the OIO dt. 16.1.2012. Accordingly, they filed a ROM petition under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV on 16.4.2014. Appellants were intimated by the said authority vide letter dt. 7.5.2014 that the above ROM petition was transferred to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Service Tax. Appellant addressed a letter dt. 26.12.2014 to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Service Tax, seeking status of the ROM petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded that if the date of receipt of ROM order is reckoned, the appeals are in time before Tribunal. The delay occurred is not due to any malafide, deliberate intention on the part of the appellant but due to genuine reasons as their ROM petition was already filed before the authority who passed the impugned order and non-service of ROM orders led to delay. Hence he prayed the delay may be condoned. 3. Shri M. Balamurugan, A.C (A.R) opposing the prayer of counsel submitted that the Tribunal should .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version