M/S. Quintilies Technologies (India) ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/373-375/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeals raise the same issue as an earlier decided set of appeals between the same parties, and the Tribunal allows them by following that earlier order (No. A/10218-10223/2014 dated 04.02.2014) without independently setting out reasons of its own. The principle the decision rests on is that where the same issue has already been decided in the assessee's favour between the same parties for an earlier period, the later appeals are to be allowed on the strength of that earlier decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-133-2012-STC/KANPAZHAKAN-COMMR (A)/AHD dated 17.04.2012, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad)
M/s. Quintilies Technologies (India) Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble 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?
No
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. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 13.03.2015
ORDER No. A/10221-10223/2015 Dated 13.03.2015
Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
As the issue involved in all the three appeals is pertaining to sanction of refund claims with respect to export of services, they are taken up for disposal by a common order.
2. Shri Rahul Gajera (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the same issue has already been decided in favour of the appellants as per the order No. A/10218-10223/2014 dated 04.02.2014.
3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. As the same issue, for the earlier period, has already been decided in favour of the appellants, therefore, these three appeals are also required to be allowed in view of the order No. A/10218-10223/2014 dated 04.02.2014.
4. Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL
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