9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner(AR) ORDER Per: P.G. Chacko; One of the appeals is delayed by 129 days. A copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant on 19/12/2011. Appeal No.ST/2066/2012 against that order was filed on 26/07/2012 with the above delay. As per the averments contained in the COD application and the affidavit subsequently filed in support thereof, the impugned order was received by the 'security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the appeal was occasioned by inadvertent oversight by the appellant. We have heard the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) also who has not set up any serious opposition to the appellant's plea for condonation of the delay of appeal No.ST/2066/2012. After considering the submissions, we condone the said delay. The other appeal, ST/221/2011, is within the prescribed period of limitation. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, in the cited Stay Order, the sponsorship activities were, prima facie, found to be liable to be excluded from the purview of taxable service prior to the amendment dt. 01/07/2010 to the definition of taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzn) of the Finance Act 1994, irrespective of the profit motive if any. It is submitted that, prior to 01/07/2010, sponsorship of sports events was not exigib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were paid to the franchisees and that the benefit was passed on to the franchisees without depositing the service tax element with the Department. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the show-cause notices nowhere alleged any collection of service tax and non-payment to the exchequer. According to him, it was upto the Department to recover any such amount in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
