Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Santhosh Reddy Nalla vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal9 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The impugned orders are set aside and the matters remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Tribunal's earlier Final Order No. 21349-21469/2014 dated 20.8.2014, which the appellants relied upon and the Revenue did not oppose.

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

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCHBANGALOREAppeal(s) Involved:

ST/830/2011-SM, ST/831/2011-SM, ST/832/2011-SM, ST/833/2011-SM, ST/834/2011-SM, ST/835/2011-SM, ST/837/2011-SM, ST/838/2011-SM, ST/839/2011-SM, ST/840/2011-SM, ST/841/2011-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 138 to 176/2010 (H-II) S. Tax dated 31/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 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?

SANTHOSH REDDY NALLA VILLA -76, MAYTAS HILL COUNTY BACHUPALLY, HYD 500 094 Appellant(s)

N.PRASHANT, REP.BY GPA HOLDER K.UMAKANTH REDDY PLOT NO.10, GREEN AVENUES, NIZAMPET ROAD, HYDERABAD.500 090 Appellant(s)

N.PURNACHANDRA ROA & N.KARTHIK, PLOT NO.13, SRI SOUDHAM APTS, FLAT NO.301, GOWTHAMI ENCLAVE, BESIDE CHIREC PUBLIC SCHOOL, KONDAPUR 500 084

Appellant(s)

LALATENDU SWAIN AND SUCHETA SWAIN C/SMT.SURYAMANI SWAIN, 363, SAHID NAGAR, JANPATH, BHUBANESHWAR 751 007 Appellant(s)

SUJANI MARISETTI 166, MAYTA HILL COUNTY, BACHUPALLY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD 500 009 Appellant(s)

SANTHOSH REDDY NALLA VILLA 76, MAYTAS HILL COUNTY BACHUPALLY, 500 094 Appellant(s)

SESHAGIRI RAO DORADLA FLAT 405, LAXMAN ENCLAVE, KAROLBAGH, PADMANABHANAGAR, MEHDIPATNAM HYDERABAD.500 028 Appellant(s)

VIJAYAKRISHNA NIMMALA C/O.N.PARDHASARADHI RAO.PLOT NO.103, SAISANKALAP ROAD, NO.5 BALAJI NAGAR, NIZAMPET.HYD, AP Appellant(s)

VASAVI RANI NIMMALA VASAVI RANI.N.C/O. N.PARDHASARADHI RAO, PLOT NO.103, SAISANKALP, ROAD NO.5, BALAJI NAGAR, NIZAMPET Appellant(s)

GOPALAKRISHNA JASTI GOPALA KRISHNA JASTI, BUNGALOW NO.66 MAYTAS HILL COUNTY BACHUPALLY, HYDERABAD.500 090 Appellant(s)

K.CH RAMASESHAIAH BANGLAW NO.66, MAYTAS HILL COUNTY, BACHUPALLY, HYDERABAD-AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD  500 004. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None (On Merits-Written submissions) S/Shri Lalatendu Swain/Sucheta Swain Flat No.10-A (Unit 393), Shimla Tower, Hill County, Nizampet Road, Bachupally, Hyderabad  500 090.

For the Appellant

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 09/04/2015

Date of Decision: 09/04/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20935-20945 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants. Learned AR submits that all these appeals have been filed by flat/apartment owners who had purchased flats/apartments on the basis of construction agreement and had paid service tax prior to 1.7.2010. Even though nobody is present on behalf of the appellants, written submissions have been received wherein it has been submitted that this Tribunal vide Final Order No.21349-21469/2014 dated 20.8.2014, had remanded the matters to the original authority for consideration in accordance with the guidelines laid down in that order. Accordingly, it has been requested that these matters may also be remanded with similar directions. I find myself in agreement with these submissions. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the guidelines issued in the Final Order relied upon by the appellants.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 3

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