2018 (11) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompass. With the consent of both the parties, I proceed to decide the case as the issue involved is in narrow compass. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in providing erection, commissioning or installation service to M/s. Macronet Pvt. Ltd. for providing DTH service. They have registered under the Finance Act, 1994 for payment of service tax under ECS. They collected the service tax from their customer but failed to pay service tax on the value of the service of Rs. 24,69,613/ for the period from 01/2010 to 03/2013 to the Government exchequer. They also failed to file periodical returns for the said period. A show-cause notice was issued demanding the service tax of Rs. 2,65,933/- along with int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o mala fide on the part of the appellant to file the appeal with a delay of 41 days. She further submitted that delay should be condoned under Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Jai Hind Bottling Company (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2002 (146) ELT 273. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal on maintainability because there was a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal. He further submitted that Commissioner (A) does not have the power to condone beyond 30 days after the expiry of 60 days, which is the time prescribed for filing the appeal before the ....