2018 (6) TMI 1009

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Appellant on point of limitation - there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have condoned the delay being out of his power - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/85237/2015 - A/86653/2018 - Dated:- 5-6-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, Assistant C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roposed demand of service tax of ₹ 3,34,257/-for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 along with interest and also proposing imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of FA, 1994. The Appellant neither filed reply to the SCN nor attended the Personal hearing. The adjudicating authority thereafter confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable on the point of limitation hence the impugned order has been correctly passed. He further submits that the service tax amount was recovered by the appellant from M/s. TTML. Therefore the Appellant has no case on merits also. 4. Heard the revenue and perused the records. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly passed the imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X