Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce & St, Chandigarh-Ii vs Mbg Enterprise on 2 December, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
PRINCIPAL BENCH
Service Tax Stay Application Nos.ST/S/58363 to 58393/2013 in
Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/57767 to 57768, 57772-57777, 57783-57800/2013-CU [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.9-44/ST/Appeal/CHD-II/2013 dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-II]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. R.K.SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
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?
__________________________________________________
CCE & ST, Chandigarh-II Appellant
Vs.
Kartar Finease Ltd.,
National Money Exchanger,
Ravinder Singh,
Swarna Singh,
Bajaj International,
Sukhi STD FAX PCO,
Chandan Mohan
Sony Enterprises
Sony Enterprises,
MBG Enterprise,
A B Enterprises,
MBG Enterprise
Lal Narain Forex P Ltd.
Chief Enterprises,
Parashar Enterprises,
Worldwide Forex P. Ltd.
Sony Enterprises,
R K S Enterprises,
Brij International
Shyam General Store,
Parashar Enterprises,
MBG Enterprise Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Jain, DR
Present for the Respondent: Shri Harvinder Singh, Advocate
Coram: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. R.K.SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 02.12.2014
FINAL ORDER NO. 54881-54906/2014
PER: R.K. SINGH
These appeals alongwith stay applications have been filed by the Revenue against various appellants. The issue involved is as under:-
The respondents are sub-agents of various agents engaged in the money transfer business on the advice of the foreign based entities, namely, Western Union/ Money Gram and received commission for doing so. The Revenue raised demand on the respondents under business auxiliary service which was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority, however, dropped the demand on the ground that the issue stands covered in the respondents favour by Tribunal in the case of Paul Merchants vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2012-TIOL-1887- CESTAT (Delhi).
3. Revenue has filed these appeals essentially on the ground that the said CESTAT judgment in the case of Paul Merchants (supra) has not attained finality and the appeal against that is being filed in the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
4. As is evident from the foregoing, the Revenue is not contesting the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that the issue is covered in favour of the respondents in terms of CESTAT judgment in the case of Paul Merchant (supra), merely because appeal is being filed or has been filed their against does not eclipse the validity and legality of the said order which has neither been stayed nor set aside by any superior authority. In these circumstances, as conceded by ld. AR, the Revenues appeals cannot be sustained and, are therefore, dismissed. The Revenues stay applications are also dismissed as misconceived.
(JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM) PRESIDENT (R.K. SINGH) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 3