9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t : Mr Pakshi Rajan, Asst Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa Arguing on the COD application, learned CA submits that the impugned order was passed on 20/09/2011 and, according to the Revenue, was dispatched on 19/10/2011. However, they did not receive the said order and it is only in 2014, when the Revenue approached them for recovery proceedings, they came to know about the fact of pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e absence of any evidence showing actual dispatch of the impugned order to the appellant, we hold that the date of receipt of the impugned order was 07/04/2014, when a copy of the said order was given to the appellant. The appeal stand filed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the said order and as such, it is within the limitation period. COD application is accordingly allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs only) under the said category, as a condition of hearing of their appeal and order accordingly. 6. As regards the service tax demand of Rs. 69.70 lakhs, the contention of the learned CA is that they are not supplying any manpower to Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and as is clear from the terms of the contract entered into between the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the service consideration given to the appellant was Rs. 8000/- per person. This fact clearly shows that the appellant was providing manpower to the Andhra Pradesh Government. 8. In his rejoinder, learned CA clarifies that the maximum demand, in respect of the said contract would be around Rs. 3.5 lakhs. 9. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we, though, find favour wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
