9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of 2010 (M-ST) dated 26.03.2010 which remanded back to the original authority was disturbed or not. The impugned order appears has to be passed in a hurried manner without furnishing the details called for by the petitioner, as is evident from reading of the impugned order. This Court is of the view that the impugned Order in Original was passed in hurried manner without furnishing the details to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. Considering the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent/Additional Commissioner herein to pass fresh orders on merits, after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under Commercial Coaching Service based on the month wise details furnished by the assessee. 3. The case of the petitioner appears to be that as far as first show cause notice is concerned in SCN.No.199/2010-STC Adj dated 15.04.2010, the said show cause notice has been issued invoking larger period of limitation, on the ground that the petitioner was providing franchise service. 4. It is submitted that an identical issue was earlier confirmed by the Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vide Order in Original No.12/2007 dated 30.03.2007. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner who by Order in Appeal No.64/2008 (M-ST) dated 21.11.2008 transferred the case to the call book. It is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J79 (SC) . Hence, it is submitted that the 2nd show cause notice and two other SOD as Sl.No.2, 3, 4 of the above table, apart from being contrary to the proposal contained in respective SCN and SOD, the issue is also squarely covered against the review in view of decision of the Tribunal, which decision has been accepted by the department, in as much as, the appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in K.K.Academy Pvt Ltd., V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2012 (27) STR J79 (SC) was withdrawn as admitted in paragraph 6.3 of the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even otherwise on merits, the petitioner is entitled for exemption under notification No.9/2003- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Pvt Ltd., V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2011 (24) STR 702 (Tri-Chennai) has been stated in the counter and the said appeal was withdrawn on 18.11.2020 on account of monetary policy 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 13. The respondent was duty bound to inform the petitioner about the fate of Order in Appeal No.63 of 2010 (M-ST) dated 26.03.2010 as to whether the said order was appealed before the appellate Tribunal and whether the order of the Appellate Commissioner in Order in Appeal No.63 of 2010 (M-ST) dated 26.03.2010 which remanded back to the original authority was disturbed or not. 14. The impugned order app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
