9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. The appellant withdrew the appeal knowingly that the remedy of appeal is available despite that a review petition was filed before this High Court. Thereafter without withdrawing the Review Petition this Appeal has been filed on 12.02.2019,i.e, after the lapse of one and half years. Whereas the limitation of filing this appeal is 180 days. Even if the limitation of 180 days is calculated from the date of withdrawal of the writ petition 04.09.2017, even then this appeal is hopelessly time barred. The appeal suffers from delay and latches hence, a delay of 545 days is not liable to be condoned. Even otherwise the appellant is challenging the taxability of the services rendered by him and not the amount of tax or value of the goods, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an amount of Rs.2,35,37,228/- was received during the period 01.10.2001 to 30.09.2006. 2. A show cause notice was served to the appellant by the respondents Service Tax Department seeking an explanation about the short payment of service tax and non-filing of correct service tax returns. A demand of Rs.15,78,465/- was raised along with penalty under Sections 76,77 and 78 of the Central Excise and Service Tax along with interest under Section 75 vide show cause notice dated 23.04.2007. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 23.05.2007 contending that the amount reimbursed by the GIL against the expenses cannot be included in a gross/value of commission/ remuneration; hence, no tax is payable by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Appeal on 12.02.2019. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition on 15/03/2019 due to the filing of this appeal. The office of this High Court has calculated the limitation from the date of the original order dated 11.09.2015 and treating this appeal barred by 545 days. 8. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay contending that due to wrong advice initially writ petition was filed but the same was withdrawn, thereafter the appellant was advised to approach the NCLT but finally correct opinion was given by a counsel at Delhi viz Ms. Sujata Balachandra advocate for filing a Central Excise Appeal, hence delay is not intentional but bonafide. Shri A S Garg learned senior counsel submits that the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received the certified copy on 04.01.2016 and filed a review petition which came to be dismissed on 14.02.2017. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.09.2017 with the liberty to file Central Excise Appeal. The appellant withdrew the appeal knowingly that the remedy of appeal is available despite that a review petition was filed before this High Court. Thereafter without withdrawing the Review Petition this Appeal has been filed on 12.02.2019,i.e, after the lapse of one and half years. Whereas the limitation of filing this appeal is 180 days. Even if the limitation of 180 days is calculated from the date of withdrawal of the writ petition 04.09.2017, even then this appeal is hopelessly time barred. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
