2013 (5) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore Commissioner (Appeals), in lieu of the statutory appeal. If such cross-objections are held to be appeals filed before Commissioner (Appeals), the period of limitation prescribed under law would get circumvented and as such such cross-objections cannot be held to be appeals. As the appellant have not challenged the confirmation of demand of ₹ 2.33 lakhs approximately,they should be d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging dropping of a part amount of demand and dropping of penalties by the original adjudicating authority. 2. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order allowed the Revenue s appeal. As regards the demand of Rs. 2,33,782/- , it is seen that the appellant did not file a separate appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) but after the expiry of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tation. He further submits that filing of cross-objection before the Commissioner (appeals) cannot take the place of filing of statutory appeal. As such, he submits that the confirmation of demand to the extent of Rs. 2.33 lakhs approximately has attained finality and the appellant should be directed to deposit the same. 5. We find favour in the above argument of ld. AR. Ld. Advocate has not bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X