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 →

M/s. Aqua Base Container Services Versus The Commissioner (Appeals-I) , The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

2017 (7) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Maintainability of petition - pre-deposit - delay in filing an appeal before the tribunal - Held that: - the petitioner has not complied with the pre-deposit issue. This appears to be a factual error as the demand of ₹ 14 lakhs as ordered by the first respondent was paid through banking channel. Therefore, the conclusion arrived requires interference. - Whether the first respondent was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as being time-barred? - Held that: - the l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Sr.Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2.By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3.The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent under order in Appeal No.254/2016 dated 27.04.2016. As against the order impugned, the petitioner has a right of appeal before the Cus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the impugned order on the ground other than the merits of assessment. In the light of the said submission, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the revenue. 4.The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent as against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent relating to demand of service tax under the head Maintenance or Repair Services . The petitioner was issued with two show-cause notices dated 18.10.2010 and 09 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 14 lakhs within a time frame. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the said condition and remitted the said sum of ₹ 14 lakhs and also remitted a sum of ₹ 41,43,127/- on various dates. The first respondent, while considering the appeal, in paragraph-6 of the order, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with the pre-deposit issue. This appears to be a factual error as the demand of ₹ 14 lakhs as ordered by .....

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