TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Chennai Allows Condonation of Appeal Delay, Dismisses Competency Objection</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI Versus BUYSELL INTERACTIONS PVT. LTD.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the condonation of a two-day delay in filing an appeal by the Revenue. The objection raised regarding the ... Condonation of delay - delay of two days - Held that:- Adjudication order was passed by the Joint Commissioner and the appeal was filed by Deputy Commissioner, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner. On perusal of the order of the Committee of Commissioners passed under Section 86(2A) of Finance Act, 1994, it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax was directed to file the appeal. Section 86(2A) of Act, 1994 provides that Committee of Commissioners may direct any Central Excise Officer to file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The definition of “Central Excise Officer” under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 covers the Deputy Commissioner. In view of that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel is not sustainable. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is sufficient reason for condoning the delay of two days involved in filing of the appeal. - Delay condoned. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the condonation of a two-day delay in filing an appeal by the Revenue. The objection raised regarding the competency of the Deputy Commissioner to file the appeal was dismissed based on the authority granted under Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The delay was condoned, and the COD application was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
