Nexus India Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, Kolhapur
Service Tax
2018 (3) TMI 863 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 2-2-2018
APPLICATION Nos. ST\/COD\/93245, 93279\/17-Mum, APPEAL Nos. ST\/87980, 88034\/17-Mum – A\/85267-85268\/2018
Service Tax
MR. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Jayesh Gagri, C.A., for appellant
\nShri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent
\nFor the reasons stated in the applications, I condone the delay in filing both the appeals. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and is in a narrow compass, I proceed to decide the appeal by this common order.
\n2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n entral Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal being time barred and not maintainable under Section 85 of the Finance Act. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n er considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the original authority passed the order on 19.5.2015 which was received by the appellant on 20.5.2015 and as per the period prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, the appeal was to be filed within a period of two months before the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, I find that the last date to file the appeal was 19.7.2015 which was a Sunday i.e. a non-working day for the Central Government offices. In such a case, the last date for filing the appeal would shift to the next working day i.e. 20.7.2015 on which date the appeal was admittedly to have been filed. Therefore, I am of the view that in fact the appeal was filed within the limitation of <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nexus India Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, KolhapurService Tax2018 (3) TMI 863 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 2-2-2018APPLICATION Nos. ST\/COD\/93245, 93279\/17-Mum, APPEAL Nos. ST\/87980, 88034\/17-Mum – A\/85267-85268\/2018Service TaxMR. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) Shri Jayesh Gagri, C.A., for appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent For the reasons stated … Continue reading “Nexus India Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, Kolhapur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
\n4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by wrongly interpreting the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that the order-in-original dated 19.5.2015 was received by the appellant on 20.5.2015 and thereafter the appeal was filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.7.2015. He fu<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n