9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CA HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES - For the Appellant Shri Parashivamurthy, Dy. Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 28/06/2007 passed in the revision by the Commissioner. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are rendering Mantap Keeper services without obtaining registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the said order, appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed in the revision by the Commissioner is not -sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provisions. He further submitted that Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82 (Tri. Bang.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the appellant has no case on merit and the decision relied upon by the appellant has been distinguished by the Tribunal in subsequent decisions. In support of his claim, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Pune-ll Vs. Central Panchayat [2015(37) STR 1038 (Tri. Mum.)]. 6. After considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
