Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 258 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (1) TMI 258 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 637 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Levy of penalty - appellant sought to get clarification about the order of tribunal [2014 (3) TMI 1008 - CESTAT MUMBAI] regarding penalty - it was submitted that, the contention of adjudicating authority on demand of service tax was upheld by the Tribunal, therefore they did not want to repeat arguments on merits before the Tribunal in later cases and only advanced their arguments on the issue of penalty - Franchisee Servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peated. - Application No. ST/MA(Ors.)95020/2015 In Appeal No.ST/151/2008 - Misc. Order No. M/5022/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri J.H. Motwani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev R. Nair, Examiner, (A.R.) ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by the appellant under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules seeking clarification in Tribunal Order No. A/565-566/1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty under Section 78 was imposed. The matter went up to the Tribunal who held in favour of Revenue. Being aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon ble Mumbai High Court which has been admitted vide High Court order dt.17.7.2008 on the substantial question of law as to whether the services provided was in the nature of Franchisee Service . Another show cause notice was issued for the period February 2004 to April 2004 and in that case also the Tribunal decided in favour of Reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

High Court the Ld. Advocate for the respondent Revenue drew attention to Para 4 of the above said Tribunal order as per which the appellants only opposed the appeal of the Revenue as far as penalty is concerned. The High Court therefore directed that as the appellant had argued on a limited issue before the Tribunal, they would not entertain the appeal but granted two weeks time to enable the appellant to apply for appropriate clarification from the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Ld. Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e under consideration that they have accepted the issue on merits. He drew attention to their Appeal memo to the Tribunal in the present case where the issue has been contested at length on merits. He also submitted an affidavit from Shri Sushant Murthy Advocate who appeared for the appellant before the Tribunal clarifying this position. 5. The Ld. AR opposed the issue of a clarification by the Tribunal. He stated that there is no mistake apparent on record on the face of the Tribunal order dt. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed as he was a party in the proceedings before the Tribunal. 6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the contentions of both sides. Paragraph 4 of the Tribunal Order dt. 26.3.2014 which was brought to the notice of the Honble High Court, is reproduced below for convenience. The appellants are only opposing the appeal of the Revenue whereby the Revenue wants to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 6.1. We see from the history of the case that the appellant have c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs relating to subsequent periods. Even in respect of the second adjudication order, the Tribunal order dt. 12.3.2013 records that- The learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submits that in the appellant s own case for the previous period, this Tribunal vide order reported in 2007 (7) STR 314 (Tri.-Mum) held that the services rendered by them qualifies as franchise services as defined under Section 65(47) of the Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, he is not contesting the demand of Service Tax. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version