Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Aluminium and Glazing Versus The Commissioner (Appeals-I) , O/o the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I)

2017 (12) TMI 687 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Classification of services - business of Structural Glazing and Cladding - whether the directions issued by the Tribunal are mandatory in nature for the Commissioner (Appeals) to comply with the same scrupulously? - Held that: - Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it has been held that directives of the Superior Authorities are binding on the L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice for the respondent. Heard both. Since the issue involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal without following the procedure of directing the respondent to file counter. 2. The petitioner is a proprietaryship concern registered with the Service Tax Department under the category 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and Construction of Residential Complex Services'. The petitioner is stated to be enga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ategory 'Erection and Installation Services'. The petitioner also claimed abatement (deduction) under Notification No.12/2003 dated 20.6.2003 to the extent of the value of the goods involved in the execution of the contract. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the service tax paid by them was sufficient as per law. 3. However, the Department did not agree with the petitioner's stand and sought to deny the benefit of abatement under Notification No.1/2006 dated 01.3.2006 on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in-Original dated 28.3.2012. Against such an order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), in which, a direction was issued on 18.1.2013 to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 19.50 lakhs on or before 08.2.2013. 4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.1.2013 by filing W.P. No.3119 of 2013 and it was dismissed by order dated 12.2.2013, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.717 of 2013, which was allowed by judgment dated 16.4.2013 by observing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as been stayed. However, the petitioner did not comply with the condition of pre-deposit 5. Thereafter, the main appeal was taken up for hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by Order-in-Appeal dated 10.6.2013, dismissed the same on account of non compliance of the conditional order dated 26.4.2013. Again, the order dated 10.6.2013 was put to challenge before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by order dated 06.1.2015, disposed of the matter by remanding the mat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of date of hearing. The appellant shall make an application to that authority fairly stating compliance with this order passed today for fixation of hearing. On that date of fixation, without taking any adjournment, appellant shall cause appearance and explain its case both on facts and law. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) considering the question of law, facts and evidence including the law laid down in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) shall pass appropriate orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner (Appeals) to comply with the same scrupulously. 7. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed additional written submissions before the Commissioner (Appeals), which have been acknowledged by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the additional written submissions, the petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original dated 28.3.2012 does not contain any specific averment about the suppression of fact. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supeme Court in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.V.Joy @ Joy Alukkas Vs. CESTAT [reported in 2015-TIOL-1196-HC-Kerala-ST]. Thus, it was contended that there is no specific and explicit averment about the suppression of fact or any fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner and in the absence of such allegation, larger period cannot be invoked and that the demand for the period beyond one year would be time barred. 8. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals), on remand, was required to take a de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd., though in paragraph 5 of his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) extracted the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. It is to be noted that though the order passed by the Tribunal was arising out an order passed in an interlocutory application, the Tribunal issued a specific direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the question of law, facts and evidence including the law laid down in the decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. 10. Useful .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version