9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y calls in question an order passed by the 4th respondent in Order No.400432013, dated 25.02.2013 in the petitioner's condone delay application No.ST/COD/191/11 in Appeal No.ST/230/2011, seeking to quash the same and consequently to direct the 4th respondent-CESTAT to hear the petitioner's stay application No.ST/S/152/11 and Appeal No.ST/230/2011 pending on the file of the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioner is a Company engaged in manufacture of Lift components and a registered dealer in Chennai. As part of sales , it also erects, installs, commissions and maintains erected Lifts. While so, there was a show cause notice in S.C.No.64/09 dated 20.03.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Service Tax, who is an office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd passed Order-in-Original No.16/2010 S.Tax/Ch.IV, dated 28.09.2010, demanding the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,90,60,500/-, as against which, the petitioner moved the appellate authority, namely the CESTAT(R4) in Appeal No.ST/230/2011 and also filed an application for stay and as there is a delay in moving the appeal, an application for condonation of delay petition was also filed. The CESTAT took up the application for condonation of delay to entertain the appeal and on consideration of the same, and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and considering the period of limitation due to personal exigency and further period of ailment, for which the medical certificate has been produced, the CESTAT proceeded to allow the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CESTAT, namely a medical certificate issued by a Dr.S.Krishna, to show that the General Manager was under treatment for Infective Hepatitis and was advised to take complete bed rest from 15.12.2010 to 28.02.2011 and to continue to work only after that period and the said Dr.Krishna is the Petitioner- Company's Doctor who functions daily at the Company's dispensary, as required by law and attends the medical needs of the petitioner-company's workforce. Therefore, the said medical certificate has been considered by the CESTAT which observed that the Doctor in question is a skin specialist and therefore, the medical certificate issued by him for the person suffering from Hepatitis, is mis-conceived and therefore, there is no exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
