2011 (9) TMI 533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate  for the Appellants    Shri Nagesh Pathak, DR  for the Respondents Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): After dispensing  with the condition of pre-deposit of  Service Tax and penalty, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. 2. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellants and learned SDR for the rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal  on the ground that penalty under Section 77 should also have been imposed. When the Revenue's appeal was pending decision before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant received a letter from his office on 29.7.2010 directing the appellant to file cross objection against the same impugned order. Accordingly, the appellant filed cross objection, which ware required to be treated as an app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Products vs. CCE, Bangalore reported as 2009 (244) ELT 348 (Kar) laying down that cross objections filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), at the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) are maintainable. As such, he submits that the impugned order holding to the contrary is not sustainable. 5. Admittedly, the appellants were not given chance to show cause against the non-maintainability of t....