Second review impermissible in service tax matters; delayed departmental appeal was held time-barred after prior acceptance of the order.

A prior review of the order-in-appeal was treated as an application of mind and acceptance of that order, so a second review of the same order was impermissible. On that basis, the departmental appeal filed after a delay of 212 days was not entertained and was held time-barred, with relief going to the assessee. The departmental clarification relied on was also stated to be inconsistent with the binding position on service tax liability for services received from abroad under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal, filed with a delay of 212 days after the Committee of Commissioners had already accepted the order-in-appeal on review under Section 86(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, could be entertained.

Analysis: The prior review of the order-in-appeal involved an application of mind and amounted to acceptance of the order. A second review of the same order was held impermissible. The clarification relied upon by the Department was also found inconsistent with the binding legal position on service tax liability for services received from abroad, as recognised in the context of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the departmental appeal was held to be time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

---