2019 (5) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and manpower supply service. They were issued with show-cause notice for the period from June 2007 to September 2008 demanding service tax amount of Rs. 3,38,766/- along with interest of Rs. 26,330/-. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No.72/2009 dated 4.9.2009 confirmed the demand of service tax and interest and refrained from imposing penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the Department preferred appeal before the Commissioner (A). The appellate authority vide Order-in-Appeal No.216/2010 dated 24.9.2010 allowed the appeal and directed the adjudicating authority to impose penalty. According the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 and R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 30 days, if sufficient cause, is shown for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days. Since in the present case from the receipt of the Order-in-Original, appeal was filed after the delay of 105 days whereas it should have been within 90 days after condonation of 30 days delay, therefore, there was a delay of 15 days which was beyond the condonable power of the Commissioner (A). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 30 days and after condonation of delay of 30 days, still the appeal was beyond 90 days which is not within the power of the Commissioner (A) to condone. He further submitted that th....