9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by the Assistant Commissioner was not valid. The order of the original authority was silent on the assessee’s challenge on the point of limitation. Relying on two decisions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that penalty imposed on the respondents was not justified and remand back the matter. Held that- commissioner had rightly remanded the matter to the original authority. Uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals). - ST/271 OF 2007 & ST/CO/220 OF 2008 - 1330 OF 2009 - Dated:- 22-10-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND P. KARTHIKEYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER M. Vivekanand for the Appellant. Lalit Mohan Chandna for the Respondent. ORDER P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member - This is an appeal filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Tribunal, the Revenue has taken the ground that the Trade Notices relied on by the lower appellate authority covered only specified services and did not cover all services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly relied on the said trade notices to hold that only Commissioner had powers to issue notices invoking section 73(a) of the Act. The powers to issue show-cause notices by various classes of officers were regulated by the Board's Circular F.No. 137/8/94-CX, dated 22-4-1996. As per this Circular, the Assistant Commissioner was competent to issue the show-cause notices basic to the proceedings before the original authority in the instant case. The impugned order vacated the order of the original authority as a non-speaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Trade Notices on the subject of issue of notices invoking section 73(a) of the Act, the Commissioner had rightly remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh adjudication. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Appeal No. ST/CO/220/2008 In the cross-objection filed by the respondents it is submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue assailed dropping of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the dispute as to the respondents' liability to the original authority, appeal challenging the impugned order vacating the penalty was premature. The cross-objection only opposes the appeal. As the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
