9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) is bound by the directions issued by the Tribunal and is required to consider the submissions made by the petitioner - matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration. - Writ Petition No.31462 of 2017 & WMP.No.34567 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Mr. K. Ravi, SPC ORDER Mr.K.Ravi, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. Since the issue involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal without following the procedure of directing the respondent to file counter. 2. The petitioner is a propriet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod from April 2006 to March 2008 demanding service tax at 10% on the total contract value. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice and passed an order to that effect by Order-in-Original dated 28.3.2012. Against such an order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), in which, a direction was issued on 18.1.2013 to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 19.50 lakhs on or before 08.2.2013. 4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.1.2013 by filing W.P. No.3119 of 2013 and it was dismissed by order dated 12.2.2013, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.717 of 2013, which was allowed by judgment dated 16.4.2013 by observing that the representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant shall make an application to that authority fairly stating compliance with this order passed today for fixation of hearing. On that date of fixation, without taking any adjournment, appellant shall cause appearance and explain its case both on facts and law. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) considering the question of law, facts and evidence including the law laid down in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) shall pass appropriate order. 6. In terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the petitioner effected the pre-deposit of ₹ 8 lakhs. Thus, as per the directions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to consider the questions of law, facts and evidence including t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner and in the absence of such allegation, larger period cannot be invoked and that the demand for the period beyond one year would be time barred. 8. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals), on remand, was required to take a decision bearing in mind the directives issued by the Tribunal dated 06.1.2015 and the additional written submissions filed by the petitioner. However, this Court finds that the Commissioner (Appeals), while taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner, in paragraph 3 of his order, did not go into the plea that the demand for the period beyond one year would be time barred. Apart from that, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
