TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection as not maintainable - held that:- In view of Southern Auto Products vs. CCE, (2007 -TMI - 75457 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/130 of 2011 - Final Order No. ST/519/2011(PB) - Dated:- 13-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Appearance: Shri Manish Gaur, Advocate for the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating authority confirming the demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,65,567/- and Cenvat credit of Rs.79,246/-. In addition to confirmation of service tax, he imposed penalties under Section 78 and Section 77 as also under Rule 15(4). 3. It is seen that the said order was not appealed against by the appellants. However, Revenue filed the appeal on the ground that penalty under Section 77 should also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they filed the cross objection. Secondly, the appellate authority has not disclosed the reason for rejection of such cross objections before passing the impugned order so as to enable the appellant to contest the same. In any case, he draws our attention to the Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of Southern Auto Products vs. CCE, Bangalore reported as 2009 (244) ELT 348 (Kar) laying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
