The Commissioner, Punjai Puliampatti Municipality Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 748 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-10-2018
Appeal Nos. ST\/42570\/2014 and ST\/40505\/2015 – Final Order Nos. 42526-42527\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M. Muthukumar, Consultant for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) And Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeals on the ground of being time-barred.
\n2. Brief facts are that the appellants were pr<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n 8.4.2013. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) only on 24.7.2013. In Appeal No. ST\/40505\/2015, the Order-in-Original is dated 18.7.2014.3.2013 and was received by the appellant on 23.7.2014. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) only on 26.11.2014. Both the appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) after the condonable period of 90 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals observing that the appeals were filed after the condonable period provided in the law. He has followed the decision in the case of M\/s. Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Commissioner, Punjai Puliampatti Municipality Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, SalemService Tax2018 (11) TMI 748 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 1-10-2018Appeal Nos. ST\/42570\/2014 and ST\/40505\/2015 – Final Order Nos. 42526-42527\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Muthukumar, Consultant for the Appellant … Continue reading “The Commissioner, Punjai Puliampatti Municipality Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem”<\/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-15021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15021","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=15021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n