Judgment 1. By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a Partnership firm engaged in providing services under the category of Customs House Agent's Services. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a Show Cause notice, dated 04.12.2009, demanding service tax of Rs.1,39,097/-. The petitioner submitted its reply, on 04.03.2011 and the same was rejected by the third respondent/the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, by his order dated 29.03.2011, confirming the show cause notice, dated 04.12.2009. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent/appellate authority along with a petition for dispensing with the payment of duty and penalty and a copy of the same has been sent to the third respondent. The second respondent passed order on the said appeal, dated 24.09.2013, confirming the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the third respondent. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal has been preferred in time and the same has been addressed to the second respondent/Commissioner as well as the adjudicating officer, but unfortunately the same was given by the Adjudicating Officer and subsequently, transferred to the Commissioner's officer. The second respondent/appellate authority rejected the appeal only on the ground that the appeal was not received in time. Whereas, as per the seal obtained from the office of the adjudicating officer, the appeal is presented in time. Under normal circumstances, the adjudicating officer would have automatically transferred the same to the Commissioner and even that has not been done in the petitioner's case. 4. The learned counsel would further submit that in similar circumstance, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Radha Vinyl Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2014-TIOL-408-HC-AP-II), has categorically held that it cannot be said that there was no appeal pending before the Department inasmuch as there is no categorical denial of the fact that the petitioner filed the appeal before the Department, though the same has been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. He would submit that in this case, admittedly the very adjudicating officer himself has received the appeal and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. He would submit that in this case, admittedly the very adjudicating officer himself has received the appeal and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents admitted the fact that the appeal was received in time by the adjudicating officer, however, submitted that the second respondent noticing that the appeal was not received in time in his office, has rejected the same. 6. Admittedly, the appeal has been preferred in time and in fact, it has reached two different sections in the very same office. After all, it is a transfer from one portion of the building to another portion and especially when the appeal has been received by the very adjudicating officer, who has passed an order, he ought to have sent it to the other wing of the very same building, but the same has not been done so. The order passed by the second respondent/appellate authority cancelling the very appeal on the ground that it was not received in time cannot be accepted. 7. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment in Radha Vinyl's case, referred to above, has held as follows: "In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was no appeal pending before the Department inasmuch as there is no categorical denial of the fact that the petitioner filed the appeal before the Department though the same has been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II). We may not loose sight of the fact that the appeal was filed as far back as on 14.07.1993 and for one reason or the other the same was not disposed of. Assuming that the appeal filed by the petitioner was addressed to a wrong officer nothing prevented the Department from intimating the assessee to return the papers to enable them to file the same before the appropriate authority or in the alternative making over the appeal papers to the competent authority in the hierarchy. This exercise having not been done by the Department and the petitioner having never been informed of its appeal not being accepted on the technical ground that the same was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-II), it is not open for the Department to turn round and say that the appeal was not filed before the competent authority. This exercise having not been done by the Department and the petitioner having never been informed of its appeal not being accepted on the technical ground that the same was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-II), it is not open for the Department to turn round and say that the appeal was not filed before the competent authority. Having regard to the facts of this case, we are satisfied that there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner in filing the declaration, and in our opinion, the authorities ought to have considered the declaration filed by the petitioner under the KVSS on merits." 8. In the light of the above, the appeal has to be heard by the second respondent/appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent (appellate authority) is directed to entertain the appeal and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.