https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201626 A separate timely appeal was required against the Order-in-Revision that revived and confirmed service tax liability for 1-4-05 to 15-6-05. The assessee's plea for condonation of a 489-day delay failed because the earlier appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order related to a different period and could not justify the belated challenge to the revisional order. As no satisfactory explanation for the delay was shown, condonation was declined, the stay application was dismissed, and the appeal was held time-barred. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:12:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201626 A separate timely appeal was required against the Order-in-Revision that revived and confirmed service tax liability for 1-4-05 to 15-6-05. The assessee's plea for condonation of a 489-day delay failed because the earlier appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order related to a different period and could not justify the belated challenge to the revisional order. As no satisfactory explanation for the delay was shown, condonation was declined, the stay application was dismissed, and the appeal was held time-barred. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201626