2020 (4) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....undareswaran (CGSSC)   O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings dated 15.11.2012 in Original No.101/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has confirmed the demand of Rs. 48,581/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty one Only) including Service tax and Education Cess under Business Auxiliary Service provided b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present writ petition ought not to have been admitted. It should have been either dismissed at the initial stage or the petitioner should have been directed to file a statutory appeal. 5. The impugned order was passed on 15.11.2012 and therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed within a period of 2 months before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 85(3)(a) of Finance Act, 1994 or ....