9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 478 - HC - Service TaxValidity of filing an appeal - application of mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners (COCC) on the issues - Tribunal had dismissed the revenue appeal - Held that - the scope of the present appeal is confined to the correctness of the impugned order of the CESTAT dismissing the CST s appeal at the threshold after holding that the decision of the COCC was vitiated for non-application of mind. It is evident from the order of the Full Bench 2015 (7) TMI 824 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the CESTAT could not have gone into the merits of the decision. Consequently, in the present appeal the Court cannot permit the Respondent to challenge the decision of the COCC. It will, however, be open to the Respondent to raise such challenge to the decision of the COCC in any other appropriate proceedings, if permissible, in accordance with law. - Appeal restored before the CESTAT - Decided in favor of revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against CESTAT order dismissing appeal by Commissioner of Service Tax due to lack of application of mind by COCC. 2. Inconsistency in decisions of CESTAT referred to larger Bench. 3. Full Bench judgment on questions referred. 4. Setting aside of CESTAT order and restoration of appeal. 5. Scope of present appeal and challenge to COCC decision. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the High Court was against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (CST) due to the absence of proper application of mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners (COCC) regarding the adjudication and appropriateness of the appeal. 2. The High Court observed an inconsistency in two decisions and referred two questions to a larger Bench, focusing on whether CESTAT could review the application of mind by the Committee of Chief Commissioners or Commissioners and the impact of their decision-making process on the validity of the appeal. 3. The Full Bench of the High Court delivered a judgment answering the questions raised. It was held that CESTAT cannot go beyond verifying if a decision was made by the Commissioner's Committee to file an appeal, and the act of appending signatures by the Committee members would suffice if the necessary material and reasons for the appeal approval were present. 4. Consequently, based on the Full Bench judgment, the High Court set aside the CESTAT order and restored the appeal of the CST for further consideration, clarifying the condonation of a six-day delay in filing the appeal. 5. The scope of the present appeal was limited to the correctness of the CESTAT order, and the High Court clarified that the challenge to the COCC decision could not be entertained in this appeal. However, the Respondent was granted the liberty to challenge the COCC decision in other appropriate proceedings as per the law. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, directed the listing of the appeal and application before the CESTAT for further directions, and provided clarity on the limitations of challenging the COCC decision in the present appeal.
|
