2014 (1) TMI 1655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant's grievance is that it was assessed to Service Tax and its activities were brought to tax under Section 65(105)(zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994. The goods in question were baggage. The appellant sought to resist the demand arguing that (a) that baggage accompanying the passengers were not goods and (b) in any case, export of baggage was exempted by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntually was permitted to be withdrawn because an appeal to this Court is maintainable. By then the substantive appeal before the CESTAT i.e. STA No. 3592/2012 had been dismissed on account of non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit. 2. Learned counsel argues that the Tribunal fell into error in not granting full relief. He submitted that in respect of a previous period, on identical gro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r and exercise of the discretion in the circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference which is available only if the Tribunal commits a substantial error of law. 4. This Court has considered the submissions. The decision in Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (supra) was rendered in the context of a previous decision by an order of the Tribunal accepting a particular contention. The Court held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X