TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inod Chandran,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the service tax liability imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P1 order and the order passed pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. The petitioner contends that, the petitioner was not able to file an appeal within the time provided and that the petitioner had turn over below the limit as prescribed under the Finance Act, (for brevity, 'the Act&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confers the appellate authority with specific powers to condone the delay, the appeal if not filed within the specified period or the extended period, then, the assessee cannot invoke Article 226 to get over the statutory dictate (Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005(4) KLT 947]). 3. Though this Court has in Ext.P4 found that, penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the computation and the amounts due from the additional 4th respondent. Towards computation, the petitioner would contend that, the amounts deposited has not been adjusted as is evidenced from Ext.P5, and in calculating the penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, the amounts already paid have also been taken into account. Ext.P5 is an order issued, pursuant to the directions of this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istration or payment to the department. The balance amounts, coming within the amount of Rs.3,44,304/- deducted in Ext.P5, are amounts paid pursuant to interim orders issued by this Court. Such amounts cannot be adjusted, since, penalty under Section 78 of the Act has to be on the defaulted amounts subject to a maximum of double the actual amounts due. The petitioner having failed to remit any amo....