2026 (9) TMI 1668

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is objected to by the learned authorized representative for the Revenue and a copy of the order of the previous date (08.04.2026) is placed on record in which the request for adjournment on this ground of 'delay in adjudication' was rejected since the appeal memo does not have any such ground. Despite the said order, the application seeking adjournment on the same ground is observed to be an unethical practice on the part of the appellant. The appeal otherwise pertains to the year 2022. In the given circumstances, we refrain from adjourning the matter any further. 2. We have heard learned authorized representative for the department. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal has already been decided against the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....April, 2015 to March, 2016. The proposals was initially confirmed vide order-in-original no. 04/2021-22 dated 21.04.2021 except that the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,613/- was dropped in an appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order-in-appeal no. 28(SM) ST/JDR/2022 dated 31.03.2022 has upheld the aforesaid order in original except to the quantum of penalty imposed under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. In terms of amended provision of Finance Act, 2015. Still being aggrieved the appellant had filed the present appeal in the year 2022. However, opted to not to pursue the same till today. 5. We have also perused the order in appellant's own case as is produced by departmental representative for the ....