J.N. Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

J.N. Traders vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Jun 21, 2011

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943122

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/943122
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Jun 21, 2011
Case Number: Appeal No.S/17/2003 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.208/2003 dt. 2.6.2003 passed by the Comm
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J.N. Traders

Advocate For the Appellant: Raj Mathivanan, Auth.Rep. For the Respondent: Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram 1. when the case was called, we find that appeal no.s/4/2004 against the same impugned order viz. order-in-appeal no.208/2003 dt. 2.6.03 has been disposed of vide tribunals final order no.300 and 301/07 dt. 28.3.07 wherein the tribunal has allowed appeal no. s/04/2004 by holding that freight was not includible in the value of taxable service but that in respect of other expenses incurred, inclusion of the same in the value of taxable service was correct in law. the tribunal directed the original authority to re-quantity the amount of differential tax to be paid by the assessee and also to examine afresh the question as to whether the assessee was required to pay any penalty, and if so, to what extent. the dispute in the present appeal no.s/17/2003 is identical to that in appeal s/04/2004. since 2004 appeal by j.n.traders already stands disposed of as seen above, the present appeal becomes infructuous and is hence dismissed. in terms of the remand order, the adjudicating authority is required to issue notice of hearing to m/s.j.n.traders who can thereafter avail of the opportunity of being heard in their defence.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. When the case was called, we find that Appeal No.S/4/2004 against the same impugned order viz. Order-in-Appeal No.208/2003 dt. 2.6.03 has been disposed of vide Tribunals Final Order No.300 and 301/07 dt. 28.3.07 wherein the Tribunal has allowed Appeal No. S/04/2004 by holding that freight was not includible in the value of taxable service but that in respect of other expenses incurred, inclusion of the same in the value of taxable service was correct in law. The Tribunal directed the original authority to re-quantity the amount of differential tax to be paid by the assessee and also to examine afresh the question as to whether the assessee was required to pay any penalty, and if so, to what extent. The dispute in the present Appeal No.S/17/2003 is identical to that in Appeal S/04/2004. Since 2004 appeal by J.N.Traders already stands disposed of as seen above, the present appeal becomes infructuous and is hence dismissed. In terms of the remand order, the adjudicating authority is required to issue notice of hearing to M/s.J.N.Traders who can thereafter avail of the opportunity of being heard in their defence.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties J.N. Traders vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President &Amp; t...