MEHER FABRICATORS Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the 1st respondent levying service tax on the petitioner for the year 2008-09. In that assessment, petitioner claimed the benefit of Exts.P2 and P2(a) by contending that their aggregate value of taxable service was less than Rs. 10 Lakhs and therefore, they are entitled to exemption from the levy.

(2.) However, holding that in the previous year namely 2007-08, petitioner's aggregate value of taxable service was more than Rs. 10 Lakhs, the claim of the petitioner for exemption was rejected. It is now pointed out that against the assessment for the previous year namely 2007-08, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal which is pending consideration of the appellate Commissioner. Therefore, petitioner says that if they succeed in Ext.P6 appeal levy as per Ext.P5 would automatically get invalidated. It is on that basis, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) Having heard both sides, I am of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P5 also, the remedy available to them was to file appeal as they have done in the year 2007-08 by filing Ext.P6. Sine Ext.P5 was issued on 10.2.2012 and is stated to have been served on 20.2.2012, the time for filing the appeal and the permissible period for condonation of delay also has expired. Therefore, at this distance of time, it may not be possible for the petitioner to file such an appeal.