9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : M. Sathyanarayanan, J.]. - The original authority passed an order dated 23-2-2010, directing the writ petitioner/appellant to pay the Service Tax and it was put to challenge by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 10692 of 2011 and initially, this Court has granted an interim order and ultimately, it was disposed of on 5-4-2013, with a direction directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the entire, period is to be excluded and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought not to have rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. However, it was argued on behalf of the revenue that since there was no direction to condone the delay between 23-2-2010 and 25-4-2011, which was prior to the period, in which, the interim order was in operation, it cannot be said that the appeal has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Per contra, Mr. V. Sundareshwaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that even as per the earlier order passed in W.P. No. 10692 of 2011 , the period, during which , the interim order was in operation , alone was ordered to be excluded and it has been excluded and even then, it has been found that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
