Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner Of Service Tax Vs M/s Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : ST/COD/526/2010 and ST/692/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/02/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (758) CESTAT Chennai (99)

review of an Order-in-Appeal involves application of mind and that the mind of the Committee of Commissioner was exercised so as to accept the impugned Order-in-appeal, and hence the question of once again reviewing the Order-in-Appeal does not arise.

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

ST/COD/526/2010 and ST/692/2010

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 106/2009 (M-ST) Dated: 24.12.2009
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai

Date of Decision: 7.2.2011

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI

Vs

M/s SUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD.

Appellant Rep by: Shri V V Hariharan, Jt. CDR
Respondent Rep by: Shri M Kannan, Adv.

CORAM: Jyoti Balasundaram, VP
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)

ORDER

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram:

Heard both sides on the application for con donation of delay of 212 days in preferring the above appeal against the order dated 24.12.2009 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The due date for filing the appeal is 4.4.2010. The delay is sought to be explained on the ground that, although initially the Order-in-Appeal was accepted by the Committee of Commissioners after review as per Section 86 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as per subsequent Board’s circular dated 30.6.2010, the Order-in-Appeal was again taken up for review by the Committee of Commissioners and the Department decided to file the above appeal.

2. We find that review of an Order-in-Appeal involves application of mind and that the mind of the Committee of Commissioner was exercised so as to accept the impugned Order-in-appeal, and hence the question of once again reviewing the Order-in-Appeal does not arise. Further, the clarification is contrary to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association– 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC)  , upholding the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which had held that service recipient in India is liable to service tax for service received from abroad only with effect from 18.4.2006 after the enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. We, therefore, dismiss the application for con donation of delay. As a result the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3403)
Type : Judiciary (12316)
Tags : Cestat judgments (946)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *