TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of S.Tax order no. 1/1/94 dated 29.06.1994 read with Rule 2(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show-cause notice and the order-in-original, therefore, do not survive” - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/16 & 17/05-Mum - A/345-347/11/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 26-7-2011 - Ashok Jindal, S K Gaule, JJ. For Appellant: Shri V K Singh, SDR For Respondent: Shri Makarand P S Joshi, Adv. Per: Ashok Jindal: Two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order PII/BKS/315/2004 dated 23.07.2004. The respondent has also filed a Cross Objection in Appeal no. ST/17/2005. 2. The learned SDR submitted that the department has inadvertently filed two appeals against the same impugned order, therefore, the appeal no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the show-cause notice has been issued by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sangli who is not having territorial jurisdiction over the respondent's premises. The said contention is not correct as the respondent has provided the services at Sangli, therefore, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sangli is having the jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice. 7. On the other hand, Shri Makarand P.S.Joshi, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent and submitted that the appellant is engaged in the activity of providing the Services of material testing such as Non-destructive tests and have their office at Pune. They have provided services to M/s Jsons Foundry (P) Ltd. in SAngli. A part of their test includes passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... territorial jurisdiction in terms of S.Tax order no. 1/1/94 dated 29.06.1994 read with Rule 2(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show-cause notice and the order-in-original, therefore, do not survive. We do agree with the observation of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) wherein it was held that the appellant is actually providing the services of photography and that cannot be termed as the services of Consulting Engineering Services . Moreover, the service has been provided by the respondent at Pune, therefore, it cannot be said that as the client is based in Sangli and they provided the services at Sangli and they required to get registered in Sangli as the appellant is registered at Pune and having office at Pune only. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
