TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a Partnership firm engaged in providing services under the category of Customs House Agent's Services. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice, dated 4-12-2009, demanding Service Tax of Rs. 1,39,097/-. The petitioner submitted its reply, on 4-3-2011 and the same was rejected by the third respondent/the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was given by the Adjudicating Officer and subsequently, transferred to the Commissioner's office. The second respondent/appellate authority rejected the appeal only on the ground that the appeal was not received in time. Whereas, as per the seal obtained from the office of the adjudicating officer, the appeal is presented in time. Under normal circumstances, the adjudicating officer would have au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents admitted the fact that the appeal was received in time by the adjudicating officer, however, submitted that the second respondent noticing that the appeal was not received in time in his office, has rejected the same. 6. Admittedly, the appeal has been preferred in time and in fact, it has reached two different s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner filed the appeal before the Department though the same has been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II). We may not lose sight of the fact that the appeal was filed as far back as on 14-7-1993 and for one reason or the other the same was not disposed of. Assuming that the appeal filed by the petitioner was addressed to a wrong officer nothing prevented the Depa....