9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s : Mr. A. P. Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Sr.Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2.By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3.The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent under order in Appeal No.254/2016 dated 27.04.2016. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent as against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent relating to demand of service tax under the head Maintenance or Repair Services . The petitioner was issued with two show-cause notices dated 18.10.2010 and 09.09.2011, and in spite of the objections raised by the petitioner, the demands were confirmed. Along with the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a factual error as the demand of Rs. 14 lakhs as ordered by the first respondent was paid through banking channel. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at in paragraph-6 of the first respondent requires interference. 5.The next aspect to be considered is whether the first respondent was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as being time-barred. In terms of the statute, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermore, the law of limitation is not intended to defeat the rights of parties except those who are adopting dilatory tactics or purposely evading the proceedings. The present case is not one such case. Misplacing of papers appears to be genuine mistake and the delay also is not inordinate. If the Order-in-Original remains unassailed, the petitioner who is an assessee, would have to pay substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
