9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interference by the writ Court. That apart and in any event, there is no infirmity of reasoning in respect of the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal–I, Kolkata dated 7th October, 2013 and finally, the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata dated 4th December, 2014, affirming the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal-I, Kolkata, while referring to and relying upon section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee. - WP No. 526 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usted for service tax matters was absent due to his ill health for a long period of time. Written submission was also advanced by the petitioner and finally on 7th October, 2013, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal I, Kolkata, passed an order observing that the appellant (being, the writ petitioner) had filed the appeal after more than six months from the date of receipt of the order. Since he had no power to condone the delay of more than one month, he proceeded to observe that the appeal was liable to be dismissed and dismissed the appeal, being time barred. The writ petitioner, thereafter, went up before the Appellate Tribunal, being, the Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench at K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be considered is whether the initial order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Service Tax, Kolkata dated 31st December, 2012 can be held to be so patent and loudly obtrusive that this Court will interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As observed earlier, the said order has been passed after adequate opportunity of hearing was granted and is supported with cogent reasons. All relevant facts have been taken into consideration and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the said order is so patent and loudly obtrusive, which will warrant an interference by the writ Court. That apart and in any event, there is no infirmity of reasoning in respect of the subsequent order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
