TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For Appellant : Ms. Sneha Phene, Adv. For Respondent : Shri V K Singh, DR Per: P G Chacko: After examining the records and hearing both sides, we have found this case fit for summary disposal. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. This is second round of litigation before this Tribunal on the same subject matter. In the earlier round, we had passed a remand order viz. Order no. A/218/09/CSTB/C-II dated 13.08.2009 in appeal no. ST/124/07 filed by M/s M.S.Discom Ltd. (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.) Paragraphs 3 4 of the remand order are reproduced below: 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted, at the outset, that the lower appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al authority was directed to quantify the amount of service tax leviable. It appears, the penalty-related issue was also left to be reconsidered and decided upon by the lower authority. To this extent, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) exceeded this jurisdiction. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MIL India Ltd. case is apposite. In this appeal, the assessee has taken a plea that they are not liable to pay service tax in respect of any amount collected from the consumers of electricity during the period of dispute. The learned DR has opposed this plea with reference to the definition of "consulting engineers service" given under section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. We have perused the definition and we find that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifficult to appreciate this plea. The infrastructure consisting of the electric poles, transmission line and accessories thereto was brought in place by the consumers of electricity at their cost. It might have vested in the appellant after its installation. During the course of installation, of the infrastructure by the consumers of electricity, the appellant could not claim any title thereto. The taxable service was rendered during the course of installation. Even otherwise, the ownership of the property has no bearing on the question whether the appellant was rendering a taxable service as "consulting engineers", to the consumers of electricity. In the result, we have got to allow this appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner(Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.08.2009 ibid . 3. It is apparent from the above account of proceedings of the lower authorities that, after the original remand order (order-in-appeal dated 23.03.2007) was passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), there was one more round of litigation before them. The remand order dated 13.08.2009 passed by this Tribunal virtually nullifies the said proceedings inasmuch as the Tribunal set aside the original remand order of the appellate Commissioner with a direction for fresh decision on merits by the appellate Commissioner. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, after hearing both sides, we set aside all the subordinate proceedings which had arisen out of order-in-appeal dated 23.03.2007. Needless to say that order-in-appeal dated 12.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
