2007 (12) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai refusing to condone the delay of 255 days in filing an appeal before it against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal). Before the Tribunal it was stated by the appellant that there was a delay in obtaining the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and in a similar matter an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court and that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ex., Chennai-III v. Veleo Friction Material India Pvt. Ltd. [2005] 185 ELT 78 (Tri.-Chennai), an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which was admitted. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and perused the materials available on record. Each case depends on its own facts and reasons stated therein. Reasonable cause stated should be to the satisfaction of the court. This .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lay of 255 days. After taking note of the relevant provision of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal was of the view that the decision to file an appeal against the Appellate Commissioner's order has to be taken independently by the Commissioner of Service Tax. The Chief Commissioner of Service Tax has no role to play in filing an appeal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal expressed that it was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X