Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the revenue challenges the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has remitted the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority, on the ground that after amendment of section 35a (3) of the central excise act, 1944, by the finance act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001, the commissioner (appeals) no longer has power of remand. 2. i have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the revenue by the decision of the hon ble gujarat high court in commissioner of central excise, ahmedabad vs medico labs [2004 (173) elt 117 (guj.)] holding that commissioner (appeals) continues to have power of remand even after the amendment to the above mentioned provision in the statute. following the decision cited supra of the honble high court, i uphold the impugned order of remand, and reject the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... been wrongly applied for treating the appeals as barred by limitation. the issue in the appeals relates to refund of service tax and, therefore, it is the provision of section 85 of the finance act, 1994 which is applicable. according to this provision, the period of limitation is three months from the adjudication order and the commissioner (appeals) is empowered to condone further .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the assessees have sought adjournment. however, since the issue stands decided in their favour by the decision of the honble gujarat high court, i decline to grant adjournment and proceed to take up the appeal. 2. i have heard ld. sdr and perused the records. the revenue questions the power of the commissioner (appeals) of remanding the case after amendment of the provisions of section 35a (3) of the central excise act, 1944 by the finance act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001. i find that in the case of commissioner of central excise, ahmedabad vs medico labs [2004 (173) elt 117(guj)], the honble gujarat high court has held that the commissioner (appeals) continues to have the power of remand even after the amendment of the statutory provisions above mentioned. the decision of the gujarat high court has been followed in a series of decisions by the tribunal. following the decision of the gujarat high court cited supra, i uphold the impugned order remanding the case, and dismiss the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals filed by the respondent on the ground that there is no machinery provision in the act or rules for its recovery. the learned ar submits that by section 82 of the finance act, 2005, there is retrospective amendment for rule 57cc insofar as if the manufacturer fails to pay the amount, it shall be recovered along .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
per jyoti balasundaram the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner (appeals) remitting the case for fresh decision, on the ground that the commissioner (appeals) had no power to remit a case after the amendment to section 35a(3) of the central excise act, 1944 by section 128 of the finance act with effect from 11.5.2000. 2. none appears for the respondent in spite of notice. hence we have heard the learned dr and perused the records. we find that the issue as to whether the commissioner (appeals) continues to have power to remand a case even after the amendment of law stands decided in favour of the assessees by the apex courts decision in union of india vs. umesh dhaimode - 1998 (98) elt 584 (sc) which has been followed by the honble gujarat high court in cce, ahmedabad vs. medico labs - 2004 (173) elt 117 (guj.). 3. following the ratio of the above decisions we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
ashok jindal vide stay order no. 401/2012 dated 4.6.2012, the appellant was directed to make a predeposit of the entire amount of tax within four weeks and compliance was to be reported today i.e. 23.7.2012. 2. when the matter was called for today, none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any compliance report is available on record. in view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35f of the central excise act, 1944 r/w section 83 of the finance act, 1994.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... . heard both sides. in this case, the adjudicating commissioner has confirmed a demand of rs.1,34,03,427/- along with appropriate interest and has also imposed penalty under section 76 of the finance act, 1994. 2. the dispute in these two appeals relate to the adjustments made by the appellants under rule 6 (3) of the service tax rules, 1994, for two .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... , in respect of this project, it is the submission of the appellant that it does not qualify to be a residential complex within the definition under section 65 (91a) of finance act, 1994. 18.2. the counsel also submits that the entire matter regarding kamakotivilasam project was brought to the notice of the departmental authorities vide letter dt. 23 ..... rs. 83,98,962/- has been once again confirmed along with interest and a penalty of rs.84,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under section 78 of the finance act, 1994. aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is now in appeal before the tribunal. 5. the service tax demand is in respect of the following ..... decision of the tribunal in the case of turbotech precision engg. p. ltd. vs. cce-2006 (3) s.t.r. 765 (tri. - bang.) 10.2. we have examined this argument. what we find is that the entry in section 65 (105) (zzzza) of finance act, 1994, called as works contract service covers certain services which are covered by entries in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... commissioner who has held the adjustment to be not appropriate and has confirmed the demand as well as interest and has imposed various penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the finance act, 1994, leading to the present appeal. 7. the ld. advocate argues that once having issued the show cause notice on 12.10.06 ..... penal proposals are sustainable. accordingly, i pass the following order. 7. i drop further proceedings contemplated against m/s. tnpl, pugalur in the notice dated 20.10.2006. 6. the ld. advocate appearing for the appellants states that this order clearly states that as per rule 6(3) of service tax rules, 1994, the appellants were ..... made in april, 2005 and april, 2007 respectively. against the proposed adjustment, the department took objection and issued a show cause notice to the appellants on 12.07.2006, but the case was dropped after adjudication by the jurisdictional assistant commissioner by an order no. 69/07 (st) dated 15.08.2007, with the following observation:- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the assessees herein paid service tax prior to the issue of show-cause notice and subsequently they have also paid interest. the issue in dispute in the appeal is as to whether they are liable to penalty. 2. i have heard both sides. i agree with the assessees that penalty cannot be sustained in the light of the tribunals orders in santhi casting works vs commissioner of central excise, coimbatore [2009 (15) s.t.r.219 (tri.-chennai)], m/s.u.b. engineering ltd. vs commissioner of central excise, rajkot [2009 tiol 1192 cestat ahm] which has been followed in m/s.volpak systems pvt. ltd., vs commissioner of service tax, ahmedabad [2010 tiol 534 cestat ahm] considering the provisions of section 73(3) of the finance act, 1994. 3. i, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to penalty, and allow the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!