2014 (11) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enance or Repair Service'. Taking a view that the appellant should have paid service tax during the period from October 2006 to September 2011, proceedings were initiated culminating in confirmation of demand of service tax of Rs. 45,93,244/- with interest and penalties under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1944. Revenue filed an appeal against this order on the ground that penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 should have also been imposed. When the appeal filed by the Revenue came up for consideration and notice was issued to parties, it was submitted by S.R. Enterprises that they had also filed an appeal and thereafter, the appellant found that the appeal papers were filed by their employee in the office of the Commercia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be considered. Thereafter, on 13.5.2014, learned A.R. was requested to produce copy of the appeal filed by the party before Commercial Tax officer. Today, when the matter was called, a copy of the appeal filed before Commercial Tax officer was produced by learned A.R. and we find that appeal was filed before Commercial Tax officer who transferred the same to Commissioner (Appeals) on request made by the appellants directly from Commercial Tax office to Commissioners (Appeals) office. The appellant also explained that the appeal was filed by mistake in Commercial Tax office because the person who filed the appeal would frequently go to Commissioner (Appeals) office but he mistakenly filed the appeal in Commercial Tax office. 4.1. Le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ese circumstances, and also taking other aspects of the matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, in our opinion, this decision is also not help to the respondent-Revenue. 4.3. Learned A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that if the statute fixed a period for filing appeal and fixed condonable period, such period cannot be extended by anyone. In our opinion, this decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In this case, the issue is when an appeal is filed before a wrong authority, whether that can be taken as the date ....