9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate for taking rest to the General Manager for the ailment of Hepatatis. The CESTAT not being an expert in examining that Certificate, took a view that the said certificate cannot be accepted and therefore, the reasoning given by the CESTAT in dismissing the condonation of delay application is not justifiable. Delay condoned - CESTAT is at liberty to take further course in the appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.No.6366 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishnasrinivasan, M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates For the Respondents : Mr. M. Santhanakrishnan ORDER Heard Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be charged on the supply of goods. The Department's contention in these proceedings is that the petitioner had adopted an unlawful valuation of the service portion of those works contracts. The petitioner has been duly discharging Service Tax liability as per the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'the TNVAT Act'). As per the TNVAT Act, 85% of the value of the works contracts executed by the petitioner is chargeable to VAT. The petitioner has been duly discharging service tax at the applicable rates on the remaining portion of 15% during the dispute period and relied on Notification No.12/2003 issued by the Department for this purpose. However, the Department refused to accept the valuation of the petitioner stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter due date and finding that there is no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the appeal and stay application of the assessee, against which the petitioner is before this Court. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that Order-in-Original has been passed by the original authority on 28.09.2010, as against which, the petitioner has to move an appeal within a period of 90 days (3 months) from the date of its communication and the petitioner has filed an appeal along with a condone delay application to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. The reason adduced by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that the appeal could not be preferred in time due to ill-health of the General Manager(T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT took a stand that he is only a skin doctor and hence, the medical certificate given by him could not be accepted. The Doctor attached to the petitioner-company gave medical advise to the General Manager and he gives treatment to the employees of the petitioner-company, and he has given a Medical Certificate for taking rest to the General Manager for the ailment of Hepatatis. The CESTAT not being an expert in examining that Certificate, took a view that the said certificate cannot be accepted and therefore, the reasoning given by the CESTAT in dismissing the condonation of delay application is not justifiable. 5. In the light of the above discussion, though the matter requires consideration, in order to avoid a multiplicity of litigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
