9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the petitioner-assessee appear to be of sufficient and the delay deserved to be condoned by the Commissioner of Appeals. However, in view of the statutory limit on his powers, this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction is of the opinion that the said delay deserves to be condoned. It is hereby condoned - appeal restored to the file of the respondent- Commissioner of Appeals. Moreover this Court is of the opinion that discretion ought to have been given to the Appellate Authorities under the Act to condone such delays, if caused by sufficient reason. Be that as it may. Delay condoned - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WP No. 49560/2016(Excise) c/w W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has submitted that since the original order was communicated to the petitioner-Company on 17.12.2015, but was served only on the security personnel and not on the authorized officer on the Company, the same was not delivered properly in the office and escaped the notice of the Company and the appeal could not be filed in time. However, this reason was not considered sufficient and more-so in view of the statutory limitation contained in the first proviso to Section 35(1) of the Act, the respondent- Commissioner of Appeals could not exercise any d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter may fall in the realm of correct interpretation of Sec.67 as to whether the expenses reimbursed by the consumer to the service provider, can be included for the purpose of computation of the service tax or not. We do not propose to express any further view on the said aspects in view of the order which we may pass herein after, but suffice it to observe that in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court, there was a strong case on merits on the part of the petitioner to be considered by the taxing authority. Unfortunately the decision of the Delhi High Court though was specifically brought to the notice of the original authority in the reply to the show cause notice, in the impugned order of the original authority, there is no re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. It is hereby condoned. 7. Moreover this Court is of the opinion that discretion ought to have been given to the Appellate Authorities under the Act to condone such delays, if caused by sufficient reason. Be that as it may. 8. In the present case, the delay of 184 days is condoned and the appeal is restored to the file of the respondent- Commissioner of Appeals, with a direction to him to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, subject to his satisfaction of the required pre-deposit conditions for maintaining such appeal having been satisfied by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the delay of 42 days in the connected WP No.44467/2017 is also condoned and the appeal is remitted back to the Commissioner of Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
