9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mas Mathew Nellimoottil, CGSC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Appellant herein is before us aggrieved by the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20-8-2013. Entire dispute revolves around certain amounts to be paid as service tax amounting to Rs. 6 lakh and odd. It is not in dispute that after Annexure-A1 show cause notice, a reply was sent wherein the stand of appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument of appellant, no doubt, is very attractive, but the fact remains, immediately after show cause notice at Annexure-A1, way back in 2009, he did challenge the said show cause notice contending that it is per se arbitrary and illegal. Even otherwise, such contention cannot be entertained as we are dealing with an appeal under a particular statute and not under Article 226 of the Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal. By referring to Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal opining that there is no merit in the said appeal and condonation application cannot be entertained. 3. We have gone through the proceedings and also relevant section under the Act, i.e., Section 85(3) of the Finance Act. According to learned Standing Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act. In the present case also beyond six months from the date of service of the order impugned, Appellate Authority cannot consider application for condonation of delay and there is justification in rejecting such application filed by the appellant. 4. We find no good ground to interfere with the order of Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
