M/S Vijay Enterprises vs Cce, Jallandhar

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 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?

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

Service Tax Appeal No. 383 of 2009

(Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 23/ST/Appl/Jal/09 dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh).

M/s Vijay Enterprises Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Jallandhar Respondent

Appearance:

None for the appellant - (Letter reg. To decide on merit)

Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue

Coram:

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52861/ 2015

Per: R. K. Singh:

Appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal dated 26.02.2009 which upheld the service tax demand of Rs. 80,355/- pertaining to the period July 2003 to October 2006 alongwith interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant did not pay service tax on the commission earned by it as sub-representative of Paul Merchants Limited who was engaged in the business of money transfer service pursuant to an agreement with Western Union Finance Services. Western Union gave commission to Paul Merchants which shared the same with subrepresentatives.

2. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant but the appellant sent a letter stating that the issue is covered in its favour by judgment of CESTAT in the case of Paul Merchants Limited  2013 (29) STR 259.

3. Ld. DR fairly kept quite in this regard.

4. We find that the issue is indeed squarely covered in appellants favour by judgment of CESTAT in the case of Paul Merchants Limited & Others (supra). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R. K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

Pant