https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208070 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. en-us Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208070 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208070