TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Parashiva Murthy, A.R. For the Appellant Mr. Sharad Kumar Puraji, Adv For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg Since the issue in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this order. Revenue has filed these two appeals against the impugned orders dated 24.11.2003 and 29.03.2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order-in-original demanding interest and penalty. 2. For the sake of convenience facts of the appeal No. ST/21/2004 are taken. The appellant is paying service tax under the telephone services. The department initiated action against the assessee for delay in payment of service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Tribunal vide order No. 4/2003 (supra). He further submitted that the said decision is not applicable in the present cases because in that decision, relief was given as a special case in view of the peculiar facts of that case. He further submitted that no immunity from payment of interest can be granted to a particular class of assessee unless it is so provided in the Statute. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that apart from merits, these appeals are not maintainable before the Tribunal and should have been straight-away dismissed without going into the merits of the case as in both the appeals, the Committee on Disputes has not permitted the department to file th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue had sought permission, but the same was declined in November, 2009. The said decision was accepted by the Revenue. We do not think that Electronics Corp. of India (supra) can apply to the facts of the present case as the request for permission to file appellate proceedings was declined by the Committee of Disputes. The decision taken by the Committee of Disputes; dated 12th November, 2009, is not undone and has not become a nullity. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted, then in all case in which the Committee of Disputes had declined permission to prefer appeal/legal proceedings, during the period from 1994 onwards, can now be reopened. The matters which have been considered and decided by the Committee of Disputes and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
