9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h P. Rairikar, C.A. for appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR), Shri Dilip Shinde, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellant has filed the appeals being numbers ST/89454/2018 and ST/89465/2018 against the impugned orders dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the appeals filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) has dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appeals were filed before him beyond 90 days from the date of receipt of the adjudication order and as per Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 he is not empowered to condone such delay. In this contest, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) ELT 163 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent as Rs. 21,85,223/-, instead of the correct figure of Rs. 2,41,85,223/- and accordingly, confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 22,11,604/- along with interest and imposed penalties on the appellant. On a query from the Bench as to whether the figure of Rs. 2.41 crores arrived at in the impugned order is correct or not, the learned Consultant appearing for Revenue submits that the said figure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
