9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 734 - AT - Service TaxAdmissibility of Cenvat credit - Telecom towers - Held that - there has been a difference of opinion between two ld. Members of a Division Bench in the case of Idea Mobile in the wake of which Division Bench has put up the matter to the Hon ble President for reference to a third Member. - issue involved is the same as that involved in the case of Idea Mobile which the Ld Member of Division Bench expressed a difference of opinion which is to be resolved. If that matter is referred to a 3rd Member, then these appeals will not be able to be tagged therewith and as an intervener, the appellants will not be able to argue the question of fact In these circumstances, we are of the view that it will be more efficient if the difference of opinion is heard by a 3 Member Larger Bench in which case these appeals can also be heard by the same Bench.
Issues involved:
Extension of stay granted, difference of opinion in Division Bench, constitution of Larger Bench, power of Hon'ble President CESTAT, admissibility of Cenvat credit on telecom towers. Extension of Stay Granted: The appellant filed a misc. application for an extension of the stay granted until the disposal of the appeal due to the pendency of older appeals. The stay granted vide order dated 19.8.2013 was extended until the disposal of the appeal. Other misc. applications were filed for adjournment/early hearing of the appeal. Difference of Opinion in Division Bench: The appeals were filed against the orders in original, and the appellant mentioned a difference of opinion in another case involving the same issue of Cenvat credit on telecom towers. The appellant requested to be an intervener in the case and cited judgments supporting the constitution of a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble President CESTAT. The issue of difference of opinion was highlighted between the members of the Division Bench. Constitution of Larger Bench: The appellant pleaded for the constitution of a Larger Bench of three Members to consider the difference of opinion and the appeals. The power of the Hon'ble President to refer the difference of opinion to a Larger Bench was acknowledged by the ld. DR. The procedure for resolving differences of opinion in the Division Bench was explained under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act 1962. Power of Hon'ble President CESTAT: The judgment referred to various legal precedents emphasizing the discretionary power of the Hon'ble President CESTAT in constituting benches and directing matters for hearing. The judgments highlighted that the President has full discretion regarding the framing of roster and constitution of benches for effective exercise of statutory powers. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Telecom Towers: The issue involved in the appeals was the admissibility of Cenvat credit on telecom towers. Due to the difference of opinion in the Division Bench on this issue, it was decided that a Larger Bench of three Members should resolve the difference of opinion, allowing the appeals to be heard by the same Larger Bench for efficiency. This judgment addressed the extension of stay granted, the difference of opinion in the Division Bench, the constitution of a Larger Bench, the power of the Hon'ble President CESTAT, and the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on telecom towers. It clarified the procedure for resolving differences of opinion and highlighted the discretionary powers of the President in constituting benches. Ultimately, it was decided that a Larger Bench should resolve the difference of opinion, allowing the appeals to be heard efficiently.
|
