WA 296/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge declini ng to interfere with the order of Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, actin g as an adjudicating authority under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, co ntaining provisions relating to levy of service tax. The order of adjudication w as passed on 31.12.2009. Remedy of appeal was admittedly available against the said order but the appella nt challenged the same by way of writ petition alleging that activity of the app ellant was not covered by the definition of taxable service as the advertisement which the appellant was doing was under a contract. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant having not challenged the show caus e notice and submitted to the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, could not challenge the order by way of writ petition. We have heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Sarma , learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the issue raised in the writ petit ion could be raised by way of appeal if delay in filing the appeal could be cond oned. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if appeal is filed within one m onth from today the same may not be dismissed only on the ground of delay. In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal with a direction that if the appe llant prefers appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority, the same m ay not be dismissed only on the ground of delay.