SARADHA TRAVELS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this application for modification of the Stay Order No. 40430/2013, dated 8 -2 -2013, whereby the appellant was directed to pre -deposit all the dues arising out of the impugned order. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the stay order was passed ex parte. In this context, the learned counsel submits that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) almost after one year and six months of receipt of the adjudication order.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides, we recall the stay order dated 8 -2 -2013 and after disposing the stay application, we take up the appeal for hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) almost after one year and six months after the adjudication order was passed. The learned AR on behalf of the Revenue placed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur - : 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed in the case of M/s. Gopinath & Sharma v. CESTAT - : 2013 -TIOL -168 -HC -MAD : 2013 (32) S.T.R. 172 (Mad.). It is well settled that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The miscellaneous application and the stay application are also disposed of.