9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re co-extensive. Thus, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the appellant. We also direct the appellant to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) and seek the opportunity of hearing. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/89677/2013-Mum - Final Order No. A/208/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 17-12-2014 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and P.S. Pruthi, Member (T) Shri B. Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.K. Iyer, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The present appeal along with stay application is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APL/821/13-14, dated 4-9-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has recorded the findings, which are as follows :- (5) In the instant case, I find that the Order-in-Original was passed by the lower authority on 28-2-2013 and the same was reportedly communicated to the appellant on 1-3-2013. I find the appellant has filed this appeal on 29-5-2013 along with a condonation of delay application. Thus, I find that there is a delay of 29 days in filing this appeal. However, I find that the preamble to the Order-in-Original has given a time frame of 3 months to the appellant to file the appeal. The appellant was guided by .the wordings of the preamble and it resulted in delay in filing of the appeal. I find that there is a reasonable cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced or relied upon at the time of appeal as per the Appeal Rules, 2001. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the impugned order and submitted that from the very plain reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the lower Appellate Authority has failed to exercise his jurisdictional power. The Commissioner (Appeals) has refused to consider the grounds and law point raised on the classification of service. According to the appellant, the work of laying cable and cable jointing will not fall under the category of Erection, Commission or Installation Service. He further relies upon the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy - 2008 (12) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
