9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two substantial questions of law.: "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was correct in dismissing the Service Tax Appeal No.ST/86461/14 filed by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant is not aggrieved party but it is IIMT which is the aggrieved party when the Appellant is running the institute (IIMT) as part of its trust activities? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was correct in dismissing the Appeal No.ST/86461/14 on the ground that the Appellant is not aggrieved party but it is IIMT which is the aggrieved party when the accounts of IIMT are completely merged with the accounts of the Appellantthe Appellant being a Trust? 2. With the consent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been undertaken, is not clear at all. 5. Our attention has been invited to the impugned order and from which alone these facts can be gathered according to Shri.Rafiq Dada. Mr.Kantharia, appearing for the Revenue would submit that it is different entities on different occasions coming before the Tribunal and that is why the Tribunal has decided to pin down the responsibility of prosecution of legal proceedings and there is nothing illegal and erroneous about the impugned order. Secondly, if this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal is indeed hyper technical in its approach, then, this Court should refrain from expressing any opinion on merits and must send the matters back to the Tribunal for adjudication and in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been dealt with appropriately. While it is true that in Service Tax Appeal No.497/2012 the show cause notice issued by the Revenue/Department is to the Indian Institute of Management Training for demand of Service Tax under the category of commercial training and coaching class service. It may be that the Trust was never a noticee before the Adjudicating Authority but by letter dated 20.09.2011 it submitted a reply on behalf the Indian Institute of Management and Training. It may be that the notice was addressed to the Educational Institution, but the Tribunal was aware that it was the Trust who was representing the matter before the Adjudicating Authority. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal should not have taken a hyper tech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
