Parshotam Arora vs Cce, Ludhiana

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal23 March 2015

CitationAppeal No. ST/589-590/2009-Cus (DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is rejected in deference to an earlier decision of the Tribunal's principal bench on an identical question: where a service provider's activity is indistinguishable from a precedent already decided by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the later bench is bound to follow that precedent and is not free to reach a different conclusion on the same facts.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066CIRCUIT BENCH AT CHANDIGARHAppeal No. ST/589-590/2009-Cus (DB)

(Arising out of OIA No.44/ST/APPL/JAL/2009 and 43/ST/APPL/JAL/2009 dt.31.3.09 passed by CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh)

Parshotam Arora Appellants

Tejinder Singh

Vs.

CCE, Ludhiana Respondent

Appearance:

Appellant: Shri Gautam Chug, Advocate

Respondent: Shri Devender Singh, AR

Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

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? No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Coram:HonbleMr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision: 23.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50898-50899/2015

PER: P.S.PRUTHI

The appellants are in appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants providing services to M/s.Ebiz. Com pvt.Ltd. for selling their products/packages and explaining marketing plans to the new associates found by them. The proceedings were started for payment of service tax on the service provided under the category of business auxiliary service. The demands were confirmed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith interest and penalties under sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the service tax alongwih interest has been paid. Therefore, he prays for setting aside penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Act.

5. We find that an identical case of service of selling products to M/s.E-Biz had come before the principal bench of this Tribunal, vide its Order No.ST/A/569945-56954/2013 dated 4.7.2013 upheld the demand of service tax as well as imposition of penalty under sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Following the precedent decision of the principal bench, we reject the appeals of the appellants.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

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