9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Shri N. L. N. Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S. L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This Revenue's appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 04/2007 (H-I) (D) CE dated 10-3-2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-Original No. 28/2005 dated 19-12-2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the assessee. 2. The Assistant Commissioner has dropped the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice dated 8-6-2005 which was challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the matter has been disposed of under Central Excise Act while the matter has to be disposed of under Finance Act as the issue pertains to levy of Service Tax. The Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on one time basis. However, once it is accepted that no service tax is leviable on the payments made towards transfer of know-how: it becomes immaterial whether the payment of royalty is made on one time basis or on periodical basis. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the demand of service tax on the Respondents with reference to their payments made to their foreign firm M/s. Continental cannot be sustained. 9. As far as the demand of service tax on the amounts paid by the Respondents to the foreign firm towards assembling, installation, testing and commissioning of new machines by holding that all these are covered under "Consulting Engineer Services" is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned Order-in-Original, therefore, merits upholding. I accordingly reject the subject appeal. 11. The subject appeal is disposed off in above terms.' The Revenue has restricted the appeal only with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have remanded the matter to the Divisional Authority, i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad and the appeal should have been treated as an appeal of Revision of the Order-in-Original. 3. We have heard both the sides in the matter. 4. The learned DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have transferred all the papers to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad and the appeal should have been treated as an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the orders passed by both the authorities are not correct in law. The Authorisation Order signed by the Single Commissioner is not maintainable. The Authorisation has to be signed by a Committee of two Commissioners as held in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) and also in the case of Gupta Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The ratio of the finding given by the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Mukund Modhe (supra) is also applies to the facts of the case. We find, even on merit, the issue is decided finally in the assessee's favour. We do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal and the same is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
