Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2007 (3) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. -  Revenue has filed this COD application for entertaining their appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19-11-05, vacating an order of the original authority demanding differential service tax under the category 'Steamer Agent' for various services provided by them. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 98 days. The impugned order h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew order dated 28-4-06, the appellant filed the appeal only after 46 days had elapsed. 3. The following is the time chart filed by the revenue to explain the delay : (a) Date of receipt of the Order-in-Appeal 9-12-05 (b) Date of calling the case file 23-1-06 (c) Date of receipt of case file 26-4-06 (d) Date of receipt of the Board's letter 28-4-06 (e)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... when public cause was involved. The state should not be put on the footing as an individual. 5. The Ld. Counsel cited the decision of this Bench in CCE, Trichy v. Tamilnadu Asbestos reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 316 (Tri.-Chen.), wherein the application for condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the appeal, filed by the revenue was rejected. The said decision was made after considering t....