9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument floated by the appellant and the terms and conditions of the contracts and the statutory provisions - The issue is already decided in favour of the assessee in our Final Order No.116 to 119/2010 dated 21.12.2010 - Appeal is allowed - ST/1507 TO 1509/2010 - Final Order Nos. 242-244/2011 - Dated:- 17-3-2011 - SHRI M. V. RAVINDRAN, SHRI P. KARTHIKEYAN, JJ. Shri V. Suresh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri D. P. Nagendra Kumar, JCDR for the revenue. Per Shri M. V. Ravindran These appeals are filed against the impugned Orders-in-Original No. 9 to 11/2010-Service Tax (Commr.) dated 31.3.2010. 2. Since the issue in all these cases is the same and of the very same assessee, we dispose off all these appeals b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority confirmed the demands, imposed penalties and sought interest on the amounts confirmed against which these appeals are filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that in respect of the very same appellant in appeal No.ST/625 to 626/2009, this Bench vide Final Order No.116 -119/2010 dated 21.12.2010, in an identical set of facts has allowed the appeals filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue, (which were numbered as ST/604 605/2009). He would heavily rely upon the ratio laid down by this bench from paragraph 9 onwards. 5. The learned JCDR on the other hand also submits that the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods is not transferred when the appellant procures FMFL from distilleries. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and examined the case records. The dispute involved in this case is undoubtedly the very same issue which has been decided by us in Final Order No.116 to 119/2010 dated 21.12.2010. The dispute in the current appeals before us is for the subsequent period than the period which was decided by us in the Final Order. We find that our judgment in Final Order No.116 to 119/2010 dated 21.12.2010 has considered all the submissions made by both sides and also the statutory provisions, to come to a conclusion that the appellant is engaged in an activity akin to trading and the activities undertaken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
