Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 07, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41061

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/41061
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani, S T T.V.
Decided On: Dec 07, 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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(104)ECC493

Excerpt

.....not made an application for registration within the stipulated period, he was liable to pay penalty of rs. 500/- without dispute. the impugned order was, therefore, passed, directing the respondent to pay penalty of rs. 500/- and to get himself registered under section 69 of the act.3. the commissioner (appeals) instead of examining the validity of the order purported to have been made under section 75a of the act for violation of section 69 without issuance of any notice giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent before imposition of the penalty, proceeded to decide the issue as to whether the respondent was providing training or coaching and thereby rendered services of commercial coaching centre, and came to a finding that as an individual, he was not maintaining any establishment page 495 for doing the tuition work and, therefore, his case was not covered under 'commercial training or coaching services' as defined in the service tax notification.3.1 the commissioner (appeals) was only concerned with the validity or otherwise of the order impugned before him which was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondent. since the order made by the assistant commissioner was admittedly, issued without according an opportunity of being heard to the respondent, it could not have been sustained. the order of the commissioner (appeals) setting aside that the order is, therefore, upheld on the ground that the assistant commissioner had made an order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent and not for the reasons given in the impugned order.4. as a result, while dismissing this appeal against the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) on the ground that the order passed by the assistant commissioner being violative of principles of natural justice deserved to be set aside, and dismissing this appeal, we leave it open for the assistant commissioner to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Sangrur.

2. It appears from the record that an order was made on 31.12.2003 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in the context of the provisions of Section 66 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 on an allegation that the respondent who was giving tuitions and thereby providing the services of commercial coaching centre did not apply for registration under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It appears that without issuing any show cause notice as to the penalty which could be imposed under Section 75A for failure of registration, the Assistant Commissioner straightaway passed the said order holding that the respondent was liable to service tax under Section 66 of the said Act and since he had not made an application for registration within the stipulated period, he was liable to pay penalty of Rs. 500/- without dispute. The impugned order was, therefore, passed, directing the respondent to pay penalty of Rs. 500/- and to get himself registered under Section 69 of the Act.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) instead of examining the validity of the order purported to have been made under Section 75A of the Act for violation of Section 69 without issuance of any notice giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent before imposition of the penalty, proceeded to decide the issue as to whether the respondent was providing training or coaching and thereby rendered services of commercial coaching centre, and came to a finding that as an individual, he was not maintaining any establishment Page 495 for doing the tuition work and, therefore, his case was not covered under 'commercial training or coaching services' as defined in the service tax notification.

3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) was only concerned with the validity or otherwise of the order impugned before him which was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Since the order made by the Assistant Commissioner was admittedly, issued without according an opportunity of being heard to the respondent, it could not have been sustained. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside that the order is, therefore, upheld on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner had made an order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondent and not for the reasons given in the impugned order.

4. As a result, while dismissing this appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner being violative of principles of natural justice deserved to be set aside, and dismissing this appeal, we leave it open for the Assistant Commissioner to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Mr. Dinesh Kumar Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R Abichandani, S T T.V.