TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Review Adjudication Order No. 30/2006 dated 9-8-2006, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. The matter had been adjudicated by the Assistant Com missioner who confirmed a small amount of Rs.3,04,749/- whereas the Com missioner in the Review Adjudication Order has confirmed an amount of Rs.15,71,35,208/- towards the Service Tax. The issue pertains to the service of "Inter Connectivity" to cellular/mobile operators and the same suffers service tax. The stay matter had come up for consideration on a number of occasions and the Bench had directed the Revenue to file their para-wise comments. As the same had not been filed, a Miscellaneous Order No. 533/2007, dated 30-10-2007 [2008 (9) S.T.R. 178 (T)] was passed granting in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f finally. In terms of the above Paragraphs, it is clear that the Revenue is enforcing the Board's circular No. 91/2/2007-S.T., dated 12-3-2007 and the consequences of the same is that the impugned order is not being enforced. The Commissioner has conceded that the impugned order is not having any legality. The Commissioner is conceding the matter in view of the Board's circular. 2. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the Board's Circular dated 12-3-2007 and para-wise comments, the Review Adjudication Order is required to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed. The learned Counsel refers to the Tribunal rulings on the very issue. He relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007, the demands are not sustainable. The Commissioner has also filed para-wise comments which are extracted above. Therefore he does not press for the confirmation of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both thel sides. In terms of the extract of the comments at Paragraphs 6 7, it is clear that the Commissioner has accepted the Board's Circular No. 91/2/2007-S.T dated 12- 3-2007. He has clearly conceded that the impugned order does not have legality and cannot be enforced. Further it has been decided by the Tribunal in the cited judgment, even otherwise the issue is covered in the assessee's favour. The penalty is not leviable in terms of the judgments rendered in the case of Surat Municipal Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
