Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai vs M/S. Lason India Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.193 & 194 (M-ST), both dated 08.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Centra
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order does not suffer from legal infirmity and that the direction limiting the adjudicating authority's examination to the aspect specified by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not open to interference, so no appellate interference is warranted where the first appellate authority has examined the relevant services in detail and confined the remand to a specific question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No.193 & 194 (M-ST), both dated 08.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai ]
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. LASON INDIA PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT
ST/00094, 00155 to 00160/2011
[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No.210 to 216/2010 (M-ST), all dated 1012.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. LASON INDIA PVT. LTD.
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, JC (AR)
For the Respondent Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 03-09-2015
FINAL ORDER NOs. 41166-41174 / 2015
There is no appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondent. This establishes that the respondent is not unsatisfied with the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Revenue points out that a very limited issue arises out of order of Commissioner (Appeals). That is Adjudicating authority has to examine the aspect that has been directed by Commissioner (Appeals) to be done.
2. On the previous day of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent had submitted the ratio of the decision in the case of Kbace Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2010 (18) S.T.R. 281 (Tri.-Bang.) for examination by Revenue. According to him, when there was an elaborate examination of the concerned services availed by respondent as has been done by learned Commissioner (Appeals), there should not have been any appeal by Revenue.
3. Considering the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) not suffering from legal infirmity and he has given direction limiting the examination by Adjudicating authority , his order does not call for interference. Accordingly, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 09-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 03.09.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 05.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 09.09.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 11.09.2015
2 ST/00092 & 0009 ST/00094, 00155 to 00160/20113/2011
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