Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ... on 11 January, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/COD/28812/2013 in ST/28153/2013-DB ST/Stay/28814/2013 in ST/28153/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/28153/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 118/2012 dated 09/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (ARO Markets - East , Shivajinagar Bangalore 560 022 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-Service Tax 1st To 5th Floor, TTMC Building, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur Bangalore 560 071 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Smt Savitha, Advocate Atul K Alur & Teja No. 106/5, Balaji 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Tala Silk Farm Basavanagudi Bangalore 560 004 Karnataka For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 11/01/2016 Date of Decision: 11/01/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20007 / 2016 Per: M.V. RAVINDRAN This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Bench.
2. Learned counsel fairly submits that in respect of the very same assessee, this Bench by Final Order No. 21752-21753/2015 has not accepted the delay of 213-223 days in filing the appeal. It is her submission that the issue is same in this appeal also. She produces a copy of the order dated 28.07.2015.
3. On perusal of the said order, we find it so. Since in the appellants own case we have not condoned the delay in earlier matters, same reasoning will apply. Accordingly we reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently the stay petition and appeal are also rejected. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court) (ASHOK K. ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (M.V. RAVINDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss