TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: We do not find any merit in the application filed by GSPC to implead as an intervener and accordingly reject the same. - ST/344 & 363/2009 - M/319/WZB/AHD/2011 - Dated:- 25-1-2011 - Archana Wadhwa, B S V Murthy, JJ. For Appellants: Shri A M Kapadia, Adv. for GSPC, Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, Consultant and Shri Niraj Sharma for M/s Atwood, CA For Respondent: Shri S K Mall, SDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate Shri A.M. Kapadia for GSPC Ltd. submitted that because of the contract entered into between the two parties, the classification of service assumes importance and classification of service is a legal issue and therefore the application of intervention may be allowed. He submits that according to Rule 41 of CESTAT Rules, this is permissible. He also submits that if he is allowed as an inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned advocate for M/s Atwood, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSRTC is applicable to the present case. In that case also, the Service Tax demand was made on private bus owners who had rented the buses to UPSRTC and UPSRTC wanted to intervene on the ground that if the private bus owners were held liable to pay Service Tax, the liability would fall on UPSR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
