Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sinetech

Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Sinetech

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Nov 06, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941789

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/941789
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Decided On: Nov 06, 2009
Case Number: Appeal No. E/1131 of 2003
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, Chennai

Advocate Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Appellant. None for the Respondents

Respondent

M/S. Sinetech

Excerpt

per dr. chittaranjan satapathy heard the learned jt. cdr. the notice issued to the respondents has come back undelivered. however, we find that the respondents had earlier requested for decision of the appeal on the basis of written submissions dated 29.3.2004. 2. the learned jt. cdr states that the tribunal has decided a similar case vide final order no. 445 - 446/2009 dated 20.4.2009 in the case of m/s. virgo industries (engineers) pvt. ltd. and other. he prays for remanding the matter to the lower appellate authority to decide the case in the light of the tribunal’s cited decision. 3. accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority who shall take into account the grounds of appeal filed by the department as well as the cited order dated 20.4.2009 before passing a fresh order. he shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 4. the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Full Judgment

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy

Heard the learned Jt. CDR. The notice issued to the respondents has come back undelivered. However, we find that the respondents had earlier requested for decision of the appeal on the basis of written submissions dated 29.3.2004.

2. The learned Jt. CDR states that the Tribunal has decided a similar case vide Final Order No. 445 - 446/2009 dated 20.4.2009 in the case of M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. and Other. He prays for remanding the matter to the lower appellate authority to decide the case in the light of the Tribunal’s cited decision.

3. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority who shall take into account the grounds of appeal filed by the Department as well as the cited order dated 20.4.2009 before passing a fresh order. He shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents.

4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Sinetech Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &...