M/S. Larsen & Toubro vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIO No. STC/CCS/17/Commr/Ahd/2004-07 dated 02.3.2007 Passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad,)

M/s. Larsen & Toubro : Appellant (s)

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Adj. request.

For Revenue : Shri Raju Srivastava, Jt. CDR & Alok Srivastava, AR.

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

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 should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.01.2015

ORDER No. A/10043 / 2015 Dated 12.01.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

None appears on behalf of the appellants. On perusal of the records, we find that the Tribunal adjourned this matter on 29.10.2014 as a last chance.

2. It is seen from the records that the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant filed application for adjournment on the ground that the appellant filed a writ petition No. 38963 of 2006 before the Honble Madras High Court challenging the levying service tax on receipt even before services are provided, as ultra-vires Article 14, 19 (1) (g), Article 240 and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that by order dated 16.10.2006, the Hon'ble High Court has granted interim stay. We find that the present appeal was filed against Adjudication Order dated 02.3.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad and there is no stay order against the impugned order. It is noticed that despite order dated 29.10.2014 the appellant has not appeared before the Bench. It seems that the appellant is not interested to proceed in appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for non prosecution.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL

2