9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve jurisdiction to decide the cases in the Districts specified therein and admittedly the State of Maharashtra or Delhi is not one of the specified territories - as the Commissioner has not examined the angle of jurisdiction from the above point of view, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for fresh look into the angle of jurisdiction. It is suggested that if the Commissioner is of the view that the matter falls outside his jurisdiction, he is at liberty to approach the Board for the appropriate action required for appointing a single adjudicating authority for multiple registrations - Following decision of Vihar Ahar Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2012 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and Ore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t other places at Mumbai, Pune, Gurgaon, New Delhi etc. As such, we note that the demand in the present appeal relates to the construction activities carried out by the appellant at 12-13 different places. 3. It is seen that the appellant before the Commissioner strongly raised objection about his jurisdiction to decide the service tax in respect of the other construction services provided at different places i.e. at Pune, Mumbai, New Delhi etc. and submitted that inasmuch as the place of service provider does not fall under the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Noida, the confirmation of demand for service tax in respect of such services would not be in accordance with law. However, the Commissioner dealt with the said plea of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax liability arising in respect of construction activities done from other places. As regards free supply material, she submits that the subject condition of the Notification admittedly does not stand satisfied by the appellant and the abatement claimed has been rightly rejected. She submits that it stands recorded in the impugned order that the appellant recovered the service tax amount from their client but did not deposit the same. The quantum of receipt of service tax as reflected in their balance sheet is different from the quantum received by them. 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we reject the prayer made by the ld. DR for disposal of the appeal. As we have already observed that the matter needs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, it is seen that the summons were being issued to Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Director of the appellant unit, to their registered Mumbai Office. Even the show cause notice is addressed to their Mumbai Office. This reflects that the appellant was having registered office in Mumbai and as per the appellant all the services were being offered from Mumbai. We also note that as per the service tax Order No. 1194 dated 29.06.1994 issued by the Board, the jurisdiction of various officers to decide the service tax dispute stands detailed. In terms of the said order, Commissioner of Central Excise will have the jurisdiction as defined in sub-rule (ii) of Rule 2 of Central Excise Rule, 1994 in terms of the Notification No. 14/2002-CE (NT) dated 8.3.2002, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
