CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi
COURT-I
Date of hearing/decision:09.7.2014
Stay Application No.55796 2013 and
Service Tax Appeal No.55558 of 2013
Arising out of the order-in-appeal No.242-243(RDN)ST/JPR-I/2012 dated 23/31.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur.
For Approval and Signature:
Hon ble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President
Hon ble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication I n any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Desert Inn Limited .. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., Jaipur I .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, C.A. for the appellant
Present Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. for the respondent
Coram: Hon ble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Hon ble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
Final Order No. 52759/2014
Per Justice G.Raghuram:
By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals preferred by the appellant/assessee against separate adjudication orders dated 17.3.2011 and 29.3.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax, Jaipur, partly allowing the appeals. The appellate Commissioner granted relief only to the extent dropping penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. A connected appeal of the assessee preferred against the same appellate order, pertaining to rejection of its appeal against an adjudication order covering the same issue but pertaining to another period, was allowed by us today in ST Appeal No.55557/2013, on the ground that the issue stands settled in favour of the by judgment of in Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry vs. C.S.T., Delhi reported in 2014 TIOL 701 CESTAT DEL.
3. For the reasons alike and it is also fairly conceded by the ld. A.R. for Revenue (that the issue is covered on the legal principle in favour of the assessee), we allow this appeal by quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). No order as to costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Technical Member
scd/
1
West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi
COURT-I
Date of hearing/decision:09.7.2014
Stay Application No.55796 2013 and
Service Tax Appeal No.55558 of 2013
Arising out of the order-in-appeal No.242-243(RDN)ST/JPR-I/2012 dated 23/31.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur.
For Approval and Signature:
Hon ble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President
Hon ble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication I n any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Desert Inn Limited .. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., Jaipur I .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, C.A. for the appellant
Present Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. for the respondent
Coram: Hon ble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Hon ble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
Final Order No. 52759/2014
Per Justice G.Raghuram:
By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals preferred by the appellant/assessee against separate adjudication orders dated 17.3.2011 and 29.3.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax, Jaipur, partly allowing the appeals. The appellate Commissioner granted relief only to the extent dropping penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. A connected appeal of the assessee preferred against the same appellate order, pertaining to rejection of its appeal against an adjudication order covering the same issue but pertaining to another period, was allowed by us today in ST Appeal No.55557/2013, on the ground that the issue stands settled in favour of the by judgment of in Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry vs. C.S.T., Delhi reported in 2014 TIOL 701 CESTAT DEL.
3. For the reasons alike and it is also fairly conceded by the ld. A.R. for Revenue (that the issue is covered on the legal principle in favour of the assessee), we allow this appeal by quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). No order as to costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Technical Member
scd/
1
No comments:
Post a Comment