https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128509 The tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, despite correcting an error in the previous order and specifying the duty amount. The tribunal found no reason to re-call the previous order as both appeals concerned the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different locations. The appellant was represented during the hearing, and interest was confirmed in cases of delayed service tax demands. The rejection was based on the lack of justification for restoring the appeal related to a specific location. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:18:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128509 The tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, despite correcting an error in the previous order and specifying the duty amount. The tribunal found no reason to re-call the previous order as both appeals concerned the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different locations. The appellant was represented during the hearing, and interest was confirmed in cases of delayed service tax demands. The rejection was based on the lack of justification for restoring the appeal related to a specific location. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128509