9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010, M/s Chotey Lal Radhey Shyam Vs. Commission, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. 3. On 20th April, 2016, appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not confirming the demand of Service Tax along with interest and imposition of penalties (as confirmed in the Order in Original dated 3/10/2010) for the period in question when the "Business Auxiliary Service" was clearly defined under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 and included services rendered by the Respondent? (iii) When the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Idea Mobile Communication reported in 2011 (23) STR 433 (SC) has held that the value of SIM card forms part of activation charges as no activa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Supreme Court in Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. [2011 (23) S.T.R. 433 (S.C.)], Tribunal passed following judgment:- "We have seen the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. [2011 (23) S.T.R. 433 (S.C.)]. The issue involved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the value of the SIM cards is required to form part of the activation charges or not. Inasmuch as the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was entirely different than the issue involved in the present case we are of the view that following said decision by Commissioner (Appeals) in preference to the decision of Tribunal on the same issue as involved in the present case is not proper. We also refer to the latest decision in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us products. During the course of enquiry, it was observed that the respondent neither paid Service Tax amount to Rs. 6,87,387/- including cess during the period 2008-09 and 2009-10 including April, 2010 nor submitted ST-3 returns as and when required. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow, vide order dated 25.10.2011, wherein the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,87,389/- under the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest and imposed penalty under various Sections 78 of the said Act. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
