Skip to content


C.C.Chokshi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided On

Case Number

 APPLICATION NOS: ST/MA(EH)-367/2012 & ST/Stay-200/2012 APPEAL NO: ST/51/2012 [Arising out of

Judge

Appellant

C.C.Chokshi and Co.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Advocates:

For the Appellants : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri P.N. Das, Additional Commissioner (AR).

Excerpt:


.....notice in detail with supporting documents but the adjudicating authority has not considered their contentions in the impugned order. therefore, the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication keeping all the issues open. 7. on the other hand, shri premanand das, learned additional commissioner (ar) appearing for the revenue reiterated the impugned order. 8. considering the submission made by both the sides and on examining the impugned order we find that the adjudicating authority has not given consideration to the contentions raised by the appellant in their reply to the show cause notice. therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. accordingly, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication keeping all the issues open. 9. the stay application as well as the appeal are disposed of in the above manner.

Judgment:


Ashok Jindal:

 The appellant are in appeal along with an application for stay and application for early hearing of their appeal.

2. Head both the sides.

3. After hearing both the sides, we allow the application for early hearing and take up the appeal as well as the stay application together for disposal.

4. The appellant are Chartered Accountant firm and they are providing Chartered Accountancy services to their clients and also providing Management Consultancy Services. The appellant are registered with the Service Tax Department for both the above services. On scrutiny of the records, it was found that there was some discrepancy in the balance sheet and ST-3 returns. Therefore, the appellant were asked to pay service tax on the differential amount between the balance sheet and the ST-3 returns.

5. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant provided all the necessary details and also challenged the show cause notice on merits such as jurisdiction, time-bar, quantification, etc. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice along with interest and penalties.

6. Shri Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has paid the entire service tax which they are required to pay and they have replied the show cause notice in detail with supporting documents but the adjudicating authority has not considered their contentions in the impugned order. Therefore, the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication keeping all the issues open.

7. On the other hand, Shri Premanand Das, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order.

8. Considering the submission made by both the sides and on examining the impugned order we find that the adjudicating authority has not given consideration to the contentions raised by the appellant in their reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication keeping all the issues open.

9. The stay application as well as the appeal are disposed of in the above manner.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //