TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 explained by appellant – no deliberate intention on the part of the appellant – delay condoned – decided in favor of appellant. - ST/COD/40400/2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... door catering service. There were two show cause notices issued against the appellant on 23.4.2010 and 30.9.2010 demanding service tax of to the tune of ₹ 1.14 crores with interest and penalties. Upon adjudication of notices, a common Order-in-Original No.22 23/2012 dt. 16.1.2012 was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV confirming the proposals made in SCNs. As the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV without any service of said order on the appellant. Immediately, on coming to know rejection of their ROM petition, they sought for copy of the order on 11.4.2016 . The ROM rejection order dt. 25.9.2014 was received by the appellant on 12.05.2016 from the CST, Chennai. Immediately, thereafter they filed the present appeals on 20.5.2016 . He conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le an appeal against the order within the stipulated period. Hence, he prayed that both the COD applications may be dismissed being devoid of merit. 4. We have heard both sides. The facts are not in dispute. The Revenue's only contention is that appellant could have filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original dt. 16.1.2012. We find that appellant has been pursuing their remedy rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder has been satisfactorily explained by appellant. We see no conscious deliberate attempt on the part of appellant to cause delay. Hence the delay in filing both the appeals is condoned. MAs (COD) are allowed. In any case, COD matters are considered on case to case basis and there is no ground for apprehension that this decision has a precedential value. (Operative part of the order pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
