9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en reduced to one month and Ext.P5 order leaving a service tax was issued by the second respondent on 18.09.2012, which is after the insertion of Section 3A extracted above. Thus this is a case where the petitioner has failed to file the appeal within the time as specified in Section 85 (3A) and if that be so, no fault can be filed with the first respondent in not having accepted the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order, service tax, interest and penalty were levied on the petitioner. 2. Subsequently, he was issued Ext.P6 communication dated 11.01.2013, whereby the third respondent demanded payment of the amount due under Ext.P6 relying on Ext.P6(2) circular issued by the Government of India. It is on receipt of Ext.P6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition was taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced before me the Finance Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012. It is seen from Section 85, which provides for an appellate remedy before the first respondent that as per the Act before its amendment in 2012, appeal shall be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order. The proviso to Section 85(3) also empowered the appellate authority to condone delay of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month." 6. Reading of the above provision shows that as against the earlier provision enabling filing of an appeal within three months, the said period has now been reduced to two months. Similarly, the provision enabling condonation of delay of three months also has been reduced to one month. 7. On thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g lost to the appellate remedy on account of his own latches cannot seek to challenge Ext.P5 in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view, I have taken in fully supported by the principles laid down by a Division Bench in the judgment in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval(2005 (4) KLT 947). Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
