9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No. 245/ST/Commr/2001 dated 09.08.2001 and addendum No. V(ST)15-02/Dem/Commr/2000/Adj/Raipur, dated 27.09.2001. In terms of the Order-in-Original dated 09.08.2001 the following order was passed:- "The bills raised in July, 1994 were for the services provided upto 15.6.94 and the service tax was levied on such services w.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills of July 1994 and recover the amount. I, therefore, withdrawn the Show Cause Notice and drop the proceedings." After the order in original dated 09.08.2001 was issued the commissioner issued the following addendum 'In Order-In-Original No. 245/ST/Commr/2001 issued vide F.No. V(ST)15-02/DEM/COMMR/2000/ADJ/21046-50 dtd: 09th August 2001 (1)(a) in para 3 of "ORDER" portion appearing in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also do not find any reason for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) as there was no suppression of taxable value found.' 2. The appellant contended that (i) there was no delay in payment of service tax and the appellant was following the procedure prescribed by the Government. (ii) After the issue of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority became ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued the addendum which essentially imposed penalty at least not without notice to it. In the case of Parwati Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2011(264)ELT522 (Tri-Del)], CESTAT held that after disposal of the application, Tribunal becomes functus officio in that regard. Ld. Departmental Representative also concedes that the penalty could not have been imposed in this fashion by issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
