M/S Preeja Engineering Vs. Assessee: D.K. Sinha, Consultant

M/S Preeja Engineering vs Assessee: D.K. Sinha, Consultant

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad Decided Jan 27, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1150102

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1150102
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Judge: The Honourable Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) &Amp; the Honourable Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)
Decided On: Jan 27, 2014
Case Number: Appeal No.ST/12416, 12417 of 2013-DB (Application No.ST/Stay/12117, 12118 of 2013) Arising Out of: OIA No.SRP/48, 67/VAPI/2013-14
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S Preeja Engineering

Respondent

Assessee: D.K. Sinha, Consultant

Excerpt

m.v. ravindran, j. 1. when this matter was called, after hearing both sides for some time on the stay petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture, as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of rs.5 lakhs as ordered by him. 2. in view of the above, we take up the appeal for disposal after disposing the stay petition. 3. on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding discharge of service tax liability by sub-contractor on the contract received by them for period prior to 23.08.2007. we find that for the period in question in this appeal, there was a view which has been taken by the tribunal that if the main contractor is discharging the service tax liability on the entire contract which has been executed by him and further sub-contracted to other sub-contractors, the service tax liability may not arise on the sub-contractors. we are of the view that this decision of the tribunal will cover the issue in his favour. at the same time, we are unable to go into the merits of the case as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. in our view, the first appellate authority should consider the issue on merit and dispose the appeal without insisting upon any pre-deposit. accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original number and dispose the same on merit, after following the principles of natural justice and without insisting upon any pre-deposit.

Full Judgment

M.V. Ravindran, J.

1. When this matter was called, after hearing both sides for some time on the Stay Petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture, as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of Rs.5 lakhs as ordered by him.

2. In view of the above, we take up the appeal for disposal after disposing the Stay Petition.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding discharge of Service Tax liability by sub-contractor on the contract received by them for period prior to 23.08.2007. We find that for the period in question in this appeal, there was a view which has been taken by the Tribunal that if the main contractor is discharging the Service Tax liability on the entire contract which has been executed by him and further sub-contracted to other sub-contractors, the Service Tax liability may not arise on the sub-contractors. We are of the view that this decision of the Tribunal will cover the issue in his favour. At the same time, we are unable to go into the merits of the case as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. In our view, the first appellate authority should consider the issue on merit and dispose the appeal without insisting upon any pre-deposit. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original number and dispose the same on merit, after following the principles of natural justice and without insisting upon any pre-deposit.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahme... Same Parties M/S Preeja Engineering vs Assessee: D.K. Sinha, Consultant Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) &Amp; th...