9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereafter, rejection of the review application filed by the Respondent on 06.04.2010. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has completely ignored the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court and by following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur [ 2008 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] de hors the records of the case, opined that the respondent are not liable to pay service tax during the said period. The impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which is contrary to Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be sustained - Appeal of Revenue allowed. - HON'BLE Dr. D. M. MISRA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE Mr. PULLELA NAGESWARA R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls), they preferred appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 23.02.2005, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Kerala. The Hon ble High Court by its order dated 25.07.2006, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and restored the order of the adjudicating authority after setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal against the order of the High Court of Kerala before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 12.12.2007, dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent. A review application thereafter filed by the respondent before the Hon ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erged with the Order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. He submits that thus the refund of service tax filed by the Respondent in January 2010 is not maintainable and has become infructuous. It is his contention that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim by setting aside the Order of the adjudicating authority relying upon the judgement of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs. CCE,Jaipur reported as 2008 (11) STR 338 (Tri. LB). It is his contention that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the authority vested on him and the Order is against the judicial discipline; as the matter has already been finally decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the respondent s own case, dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er words, from the above narration of sequence of events, it is clear that the taxability of services received by the respondent from overseas service provider namely M/s SNC Lavalin, Canada has been ultimately settled by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2007 and thereafter, rejection of the review application filed by the Respondent on 06.04.2010. 7. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has completely ignored the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court and by following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur (supra) de hors the records of the case, opined that the respondent are not liable to pay service tax during the said period. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
