TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals) is located - appeal has been filed by the appellants within the time-limit prescribed though wrongly in another office - The Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal as time-barred is set aside and the case is remanded back to him for decision on merits after hearing the appellants – further pre-deposit of penalties is waived - ST/224-225/2008-MUM - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 78 ibid. 2. I find that the applicants have already paid service tax of Rs.1,46,893/- along with the interest of Rs. 7,845/-. I consider it sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, I dispense with the pre-deposit of penalties imposed on the applicants as referred to above and stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date for filing the appeal was the 29th December, 2006. However, the appeal was presented well before the said date i.e. on 27-11-2006, albeit wrongly in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. In view of the above, I hold that the appeal has been filed by the appellants within the time-limit prescribed. The Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal as time-barred is set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
