IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11369 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.PLAZA, OMBALAYIL BUILDING, OPP. BLOCK OFFICE, KOLENCHERY-682 311, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI.BASIL N.PAUL. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SC, CEN. BOARD OF EXCISE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 11369 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY ORDER DATED 31/03/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WITH STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS DATED 20/07/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT CUM-PENALTY ORDER DATED 13/08/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 29/11/2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY SREEJA RATHEESH DATED 31/03/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE SHRI T.S. RAMASWAMY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, DATED 31/03/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 19/08/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11369 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The matter arises under the Finance Act in respect of service tax demanded from the petitioner. According to the counsel, he received two orders. Against the first order, he filed an appeal in time and the party entrusted to him the second order also for filing appeal. But, unfortunately, on account of a mistake committed by his staff, for filing the appeal, the first order itself was again supplied to the authorised representative. The authorised representative filed another appeal against the order, against which, an appeal had already been filed. In the meantime, the time to file appeal against the second order expired and the further period during which, the delay could be condoned by the appellate authority under the statute also expired. Since the appellate authority cannot now condone delay because of the statutory proscription, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the original order and seeking a direction to the appellate authority to entertain the appeal despite the expiry of the period of limitation. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005 (4) KLT 947]. Following that judgment, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge