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

.... Radhika For Respondents: Mr. V. Sundareswaran (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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals), the 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 t....