TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n absence of any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the impugned order of Tribunal does not merit interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - TAX APPEAL No. 2459 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2010 - MR. K.A.PUJ AND MS. H.N.DEVANI, JJ. MR RJ OZA FOR THE APPELLANT JUDGEMENT K.A. Puj: 1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Commissionerate has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant has framed following substantial questions of law for consideration and determination of this Court. (A) Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be an order made in accordance with law? (B) Whether, service tax in relation to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per provisions, under said Notification, the service receiver was required to furnish a return within a period of six months from 13 th May, 2003 in Form No. ST-3B along with copy of Form TR-6 in triplicate, failing which the interest and penal consequences as provided in the Act were to be taken. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has not obtained any Service Tax registration under Rule-3 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 69 of Service Tax Act, 1994 upto 10.01.2005 and they have also not filed Form ST-3B along with TR-6 in triplicate as per relaxation provided under Rule 7A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as inserted vide Notification No.4/2003-ST dated 14.05.2003. 4. In the above view of the matter, show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed in the Proviso below sub-Section (1) of Section 68 and the provisions of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994, it is not possible to state that the language of the Statute is not clear that any default can be fastened on the respondent-assessee. The Court, therefore took the view that in absence of any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the impugned order of Tribunal does not merit interference. The said appeal was accordingly dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. The above order was followed in another matter i.e. Tax Appeal No.1720/2009, decided on 12.08.2010. 9. In the above view of the matter and for the reasons stated in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
