9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess to say that such a ground cannot be the basis for allowing any appeal by the Revenue. The appeal filed by the Revenue accordingly deserves to be dismissed. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2009 WITH SERVICE TAX CROSS APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51067/2022 - Dated:- 1-11-2022 - SHRI DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Department Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue assailing order-in-appeal dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur II, whereby he allowed the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the impugned order is reproduced below:- 6. I have gone through the appeal memo, and records of personal hearing. The issue to be decided by me is as to whether the service tax Rs. 38,497.00 is chargeable from the appellant on the value of taxable service paid by them during the quarter Jan to March 2004 to a foreign firm on the basis of their invoice dated 03.01.2004, who were not having any office in India, under the category of consult engineer as per clause (31) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as emended). I find that identical issue came up before the Larger Bench of Hon ble CESTAT in case of M/s Hindust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned order because the Department is considering if a review petition/application should be filed against the dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court. 6. In other words, Revenue s case is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has greatly erred in following judicial discipline and should have disobeyed the order of Larger Bench of this Tribunal which was upheld by the Supreme Court. According to the Revenue, since department was considering whether a review petition should be filed against the dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have followed the decision of this Tribunal and Supreme Court. Needless to say that such a ground cannot be the basis for allowing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
