9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wadhwa And Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri L P Asthana, Ms Reena Khair, Ms Neha Gulati, And Ms Tuhina, Advs. For the Respondent : Shri N Pathak, DR The prayer in the application is to dispense with condition of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 81,47,713/- and penalty of identical amount imposed under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In addition a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- stands imposed under section 77 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the matter stands adjudicated by the Commissioner in remand proceedings when the earlier adjudication order was set aside and the remanded by the Tribunal vide its Final order No.ST/172/11 dated 21.04.2011. While remanding the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence has not been considered by the adjudicating commissioner. 4.2. He also submits that identical issue has been decided by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal vide final order No.1113-1115/10 dt.22.7.10 in service tax appeals no.ST/555/08, ST/475/08 of ST/432/09 in the case of APICO Ltd. Co.Ltd. and others vs. CCE, Hyderabad. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. We find that the order of the commissioner does not deal with the various issues raised before us. Further, as submitted by the learned Advocate, we find that correspondences exchanged between the department and the appellants which are sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant proceedings, the issue involved is whether services rendered by MPCON to various individuals and concerns are chargeable to service tax when the source of money consideration is other than the service receivers". 4. As is seen from the above, the adjudicating authority has not followed earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of APITCO Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad by simply observing that the same is not applicable to the instant proceedings. However, he has not discussed as to what are facts distinguishing earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of APITCO Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad from the present one. When the Tribunal has specifically remanded the matter for re-adjudication in the light of the decision rendered in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
