C.C.E.&S.T., Noida vs M/S. Paramax Electronics Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.ST/58328/2013-CU[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The issue is treated as covered by the Tribunal's earlier final order in the same respondent's own case, and the appeals are dismissed by following that precedent. The reasoning rests on the proposition that where the same issue has already been decided in the assessee's favour by a binding Tribunal decision in its own case, the later appeals on that issue must be dismissed following that precedent, without independent re-examination of the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Application No.ST/MISC/55895/2014-CU[DB]
Appeal No.ST/58328/2013-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.26/ST/Appl/Noida/2013, dated 28.02.2013 passed by the C.S.T.(Appeals), Noida]
&
Application No.ST/MISC/55096/2014-CU[DB]
Appeal No.ST/53147/2014-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-000-APPL-244-13-14, dated 20.12.2013 passed by the C.S.T.(Appeals), Noida]
C.C.E.&S.T., Noida Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Paramax Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Respondents
Appearance
Shri Shri Govind Dixit, DR - for the appellants
None - for the respondents
CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order Nos.50544-50545, dated 02.03.2015
Per Mr. R.K. Singh :
The Respondent-assessee filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking early hearing of the appeal as the issue is covered in their favour vide CESTAT Order dated 29.01.2014 in their own case. Satisfactory cause for early hearing having been pleaded, the applications are ordered.
Revenue filed these appeals against the Orders-in-Appeal No.26/ST/Appl/Noida/2013, dated 28.02.2013 and No.NOI-EXCUS-000-APPL-244-13-14, dated 20.12.2013 which set aside the respective Orders-in-Original which had confirmed the service tax demand along with interest and penalty on the ground that the respondents had not included the value of the goods used in the repair of transformers. The adjudicating authority was of the view that such goods were never sold by the respondents to the service recipients and therefore, the value was includible in the assessable value for the purpose of levying service tax.
2. Revenue has contended that (i) some of the goods whose value is held to be non-includible by the Commissioner (Appeals) get consumed during the use of the transformers over a period of time and therefore their value is includible in the assessable value and (ii) the replacement of parts was integral to providing service and therefore their value was also includible in assessable value. The respondents, inter alia, contended that VAT has been paid on such parts/material.
3. We find that the issue is no longer res integra CESTAT in the respondents own case in Appeal No.ST/3279/2012, vide Final Order No.ST/A/50694-50699/2014-CU[DB], dated 29.01.2014 has decided this very issue in Respondents favour. Thus, following the said precedent, we dismiss the appeals. Miscellaneous Applications filed by the applicants for early hearing of the case also stand disposed of as the appeals themselves have been dismissed.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
SSK
-2-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free