Cce Vs. Sanchita Steels

Cce vs Sanchita Steels

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 14, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40780

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/40780
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice
Decided On: Nov 14, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Sanchita Steels

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal on the ground that in the case of m/s shree ambika steel and m/s lakshmi steels, mandi gobindgarh, the assistant commissioner has dropped the demand, therefore, the imposition of penalty on the present respondent is not sustainable.2. the contention of the revenue is that in fact the adjudicating authority in the case of m/s shree ambika steel confirmed the demand vide order-in-original no. 163/97 dated 5.12.97 and in the case of m/s lakshmi steels, the demand was confirmed vide order-in-original no, 189/98 dated 15.3.99, therefore, the finding of the commissioner in the impugned order are not sustainable.3. in view of this factual position the respondent has no serious objection to remand the matter to the commissioner (appeals) to decide afresh after taking into consideration the adjudication order passed in the case of m/s ambika steels and in the case of m/s lakshmi steels.4. in view of the above circumstances, where in fact the demands were confirmed against m/s ambika steels and m/s lakshmi steels, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. the appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal on the ground that in the case of M/s Shree Ambika Steel and M/s Lakshmi Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh, the Assistant Commissioner has dropped the demand, therefore, the imposition of penalty on the present respondent is not sustainable.

2. The contention of the Revenue is that in fact the adjudicating authority in the case of M/s Shree Ambika Steel confirmed the demand vide Order-in-Original No. 163/97 dated 5.12.97 and in the case of M/s Lakshmi Steels, the demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No, 189/98 dated 15.3.99, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order are not sustainable.

3. In view of this factual position the respondent has no serious objection to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after taking into consideration the adjudication order passed in the case of M/s Ambika Steels and in the case of M/s Lakshmi Steels.

4. In view of the above circumstances, where in fact the demands were confirmed against M/s Ambika Steels and M/s Lakshmi Steels, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Sanchita Steels Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, Vice