9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 540 - AT - Service TaxDoctrine of Merger - Classification of services - Storage and warehousing services or otherwise? - Held that - It is a fact that when the matter was taken up for disposal by the Revisioning authority, the Order-in-Original got merged with the order of first appellate authority - the doctrine of merger applies and provision of Section 84(4) would come into play and the Revisioning authority had no power to pass any order under the said section - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of Revisioning authority under Sec.84 of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Revision No.01/2009, which confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties on the appellant for activities categorized as "Storage and warehousing services." The first appellate authority modified the Order-in-Original partially in response to the appellant's appeal. However, during this process, a show cause notice was issued for revision of the Order-in-Original under Sec.84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revisioning authority passed an Order-in-Revision on 06.02.2009, imposing higher penalties under Sec.76, 77. The counsel argued that the Order-in-Revision could not have been passed under Sec.84 and cited Sec.84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, referring to a similar decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Inani Carriers. The Tribunal found that the Order-in-Revision lacked jurisdiction as the doctrine of merger applied when the matter was disposed of by the Revisioning authority, merging the Order-in-Original with the first appellate authority's order. According to Sec.84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Revisioning authority had no power to pass any order under that section once the orders had merged. The Tribunal agreed with the counsel's argument and applied the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Inani Carriers, concluding that the Order-in-Revision was unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Revision and allowed the appeal. The operative part of this Order was pronounced in the Open Court at the conclusion of the hearing.
|
