9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Finance Act, 1994, only with effect from 1.6.2007, and the said judgment is binding on the second respondent appellate tribunal - The writ petition is ordered accordingly. - 13281 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2011 - MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, J. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate for Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravindran Additional Solicitor General O R D E R Heard Mr.N.Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Ravindran, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the second respondent Appellate Tribunal, dated 26.5.2011, and consequently, direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt appellate tribunal. Further, the petitioner had filed an application for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit and for a stay of the recovery of the service tax demand and the penalty, in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Various grounds had been raised by the petitioner before the second respondent appellate tribunal. It had been stated that works contract service had been made taxable, for the first time, from 1.6.2007, by the introduction of the definition, under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. There was no charging section for the levy of tax on works contract service, prior to 1.6.2007. Therefore, the entire tax demand made by the first respondent for the period, prior to 1.6.2007, canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2010 (253) E.L.T. 522 (Tri.-B) is per incuriam and as such, the said decision could not have been considered to be a precedent, having the necessary binding value. 10. In such circumstances, the second respondent appellate tribunal ought to have referred the matter to a larger bench for the hearing of the appeal and for its disposal, to settle the issues, finally. It had also been submitted that the second respondent appellate tribunal ought not to have ignored the decision of the High Court of Karnataka made in C.S.T., Bangalore Vs. Turbotech Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (18) S.T.R. 545 (Kar.)], which is of a binding nature. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had raised various grounds, by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this Court could direct the second respondent appellate tribunal to hear and dispose of the appeal, in ST/Appeal No.578/09, within a time frame, as fixed by this Court. 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, at this stage. However, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the second respondent appellate tribunal to hear and dispose of the appeal, in ST/Appeal No.578/09, pending on its file, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
