9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against Final Order No.41563 of 2017 in Appeal No.ST/505/2009, dated 09.08.2017 - reserving the rights of the appellant in both the appeals, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed - C.M.A.Nos.2996 and 2997 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2017 - S. Manikumar And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas For the Respondent : Mr.V.S.Manoj JUDGMENT ( Judgement of this Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the orders of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Final Order No.40130 of 2014, dated 11.02.2014 and Miscellaneous Order No.40352 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015, respectively. 2. As facts and submissions MADE in the insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irming the demand of tax, the respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai. The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), vide Order-in-Original No.32/2009 (MST), dated 27.07.2009, set aside the demand for tax, on the grounds that the said activity was not covered by the said entry. 6. In the mean time, finding that the order of the adjudicating authority was erroneous in not having imposed penalty, despite there being a clear finding that there was deliberate suppression of facts, the appellant, exercising revisionary jurisdiction, under erstwhile Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, issued a show cause notice, to the respondent, seeking to impose penalty, under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nai, vide order, dated 13.02.2015, corrected the mistake, as follows: 3. I have carefully examined the ROM and submissions of both sides and perused the records and this Tribunal's Final Order dated 11/02/2014 wherein the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the penalty imposed by the Revision Authority. I find that the adjudicating authority in his OIO dated 16/07/2007 confirmed the demand of service tax and dropped all the penalty proceedings under section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance ACT, 1994. Against this order the appellant preferred appeal against the demand of service tax and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 32/2009 dated 27/07/2009 allowed their appeal by setting aside the demand. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant appeal are two independent proceedings against two different order passed by two different authorities under different provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the rectification is limited to the correction of facts appearing at para-2 of the order. The last sentence at para-2 instead of The department has not filed any appeal against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be read as Department filed appeal against OIA No. 32/2009 dated 27.07.2009 . 9. Orders passed in Final Order Nos.40130 of 2014, dated 11.02.2014 (Appeal No.ST/383/2009), is challenged in C.M.A.No.2996 of 2017, on the following substantial question of law, Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of CESTAT in allowing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
