TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice receiver ? Held that-non- reliability of earlier decisions by itself not a ground for referring matter to Larger Bench. Reference returned to Division Bench for passing appropriate orders. - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President, Dr. C. Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri Atul Gupta and G. Natarajan, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri V.K. Panda, Jt. CDR and Vijay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)].- Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and learned Joint CDR for the Respondent. 2. This is a reference to the Larger Bench under order dated 1st October, 2008 passed by the Division Bench referring the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding agent' and what exactly the amount under the Head 'Commission' stands for. (3) Learned Company Secretary relies on the decision in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner - 2007 (6) STR 185 (Tribunal) and the following decisions which followed the decision in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt Ltd: (a) U.M. Thariath Company Vs CC Cochin 2007 (8) STR 161 (Tri. Bang) (b) Sangamitra Services Agency Vs CCE Chennai 2007 (8) STR 233 (Tri-Chennai (SM Bench) (c) Jaylaxmi Enterprises Vs CCE Mangalore 2008 (9) STR 19 (Tri-Bang.) (d) Keralam Enterprises Vs CCE ST Cochin 2008 (9) STR 503 (Tri-Bang) (e) APCO Agencies Vs CC C. Ex., Calicut 2008 (10) STR 169 (Tri-Bang) (SM Bench) (f) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for taking a different view from the one already taken by the earlier Bench or the nature of conflict, if any, between the two decisions or the substantial question of law of public importance involved in the matter. 5. Perusal of the referral order in the matter in hand merely discloses that, the decisions which were sought to be relied upon by the appellants did not disclose the reason to arrive at a conclusion which was sought to be arrived at in each of those decisions. In the absence of any reasoning to arrive at a conclusion in an order would apparently reveal that such an order cannot be said to have laid down any principle of law as such. Any decision on this aspect, if required, one can safely refer to the decision of the Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
