9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aran O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner firm was involved in the business of construction of civil foundations, for the erection of communication towers, by M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Limited during the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est and also proposing to levy penalty. In the said notice it was also stated that the service tax and interest, already paid by the petitioner, may be appropriated. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had given a written explanation for the said show cause notice. The first respondent had proceeded to pass an Order-in-Original, dated 31.10.2008, without accepting the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the order, dated 27.1.2011, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, as time barred. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the third respondent challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 27.1.2011. The third respondent had passed a cryptic order, dated 21.10.2011, dismissing the appeal, by stating that the delay cannot be condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the delay in the filing of the appeal. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that there is no power vested in the appellate authority to condone the delay of over six months in preferring the appeal. As such, this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
