T.L. GEORGE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER says that on the strength of Ext. P1, he constructed eight separate residential quarters of 750 sq.ft. each and two separate quarters of 950 sq.ft. each for the fourth respondent. On the basis that the said work attracted the levy of service tax. After issuing notice, Ext. P5 order was passed by the second respondent. By this order, service tax, interest and penalty were levied on the petitioner. Subsequently, he was issued Ext. P6 communication dated 11.01.2013, whereby the third respondent demanded payment of the amount due under Ext. P6 relying on Ext. P6(2) circular issued by the Government of India. It is on receipt of Ext. P6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition was taken up, the counsel for the petitioner justified the filing of the writ petition without availing of the statutory remedy of an appeal as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1995. According to the counsel, although Section 85 provided for filing of an appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with power to the Appellate Commissioner to condone delay of a further period of three months, the first respondent is declining to accept appeals filed beyond two months of receipt of the order.

(3.) THIS statutory provision was amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 28.05.2012 and Section (3A) and its proviso introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 reads thus: