9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rand P S Joshi, Adv. Per: Ashok Jindal: Two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order PII/BKS/315/2004 dated 23.07.2004. The respondent has also filed a Cross Objection in Appeal no. ST/17/2005. 2. The learned SDR submitted that the department has inadvertently filed two appeals against the same impugned order, therefore, the appeal no. ST/16/2005 may be dismissed as wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same the Revenue is in appeal. 6. The learned SDR submitted that as the respondent had acted as Consulting Engineer, it was the duty of the respondent to take a registration under Service Tax, to pay Service tax, to file returns which they have failed to do so. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding the Services of material testing such as Non-destructive tests and have their office at Pune. They have provided services to M/s Jsons Foundry (P) Ltd. in SAngli. A part of their test includes passing of X-ray or Gamma Ray through the material on a film and this test was done in Sangli to avoid movement of material. The film was later developed and reports made in their Pune office. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. I find that the activity undertaken by the appellants is actually photography of the specified material and submission of their interpretation based on the photograph. Their service therefore cannot be treated to be covered under the Consulting Engineering Services. Further, I find that the appellants are registered with the Directorate of Industries as a SSI unit in Pune, having their office i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is registered at Pune and having office at Pune only. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli has no jurisdiction over the respondent. As regards the challenge by the respondent on account of limitation, as the respondent have succeeded on merits, we are also not considering the issue of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed by upholding the impugned order. Cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
