Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs C.S.T.-Service Tax - Bangalore on 2 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/26257/2013 in ST/25956/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: ST/25956/2013-SM [Arising out of Order in Appeal No.15/2013 dt 11/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE ] M/s. Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd Appellant Versus C.S.T.-Service Tax - Bangalore Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Vijaya Prakash, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI M.V.RAVINDRAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 02/09/2013 Date of Decision: 02/09/2013 Final Order No. 26496 / 2013 Order Per : M.V.RAVINDRAN This stay application is filed for waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax of Rs.7,77,800/- with interest thereof.
2. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay petition, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, I allow the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal.
3. Heard both sides on the appeal.
4. I find that the first appellate authority while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No.45/2012 dated 29.2.2012 has recorded the following findings.
3. I have studied the case. It is a fact that this is a case of repetition of adjudication in respect of the same party, for the same amount, for the same issue, for the same period. The proceedings (which are in favour of the Department) have already crossed the appellate level with the passing of order-in-appeal No.470/2012 dated 26.12.2012. Also, the Department has no issues with the major portion of the alleged wrong cenvat credit already reversed by the appellant. Hence, the appeal is infructuous.
4. I therefore dispose of this appeal as infructuous.
5. It can be seen that the first appellate authority has categorically recorded that the order-in-original No.45/2012 dated 29.2.2012 is the repetition of an adjudication in respect of the very same assessee, for the very same issue and for the same period, if that be so, there cannot be any other view than to set aside the impugned order. The first appellate authority has, in my view erred while holding that the appeal filed by the appellant as infructuous. Such an order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. At the same time, since there is no dispute as to the fact that the order-in-original No.45/2012 dated 29.2.2012 is repetition of an adjudication which was disposed of by the first appellate authority vide order-in-appeal No.470/2012 dated 26.12.2012 and against such an order the appellant is before the Tribunal in appeal No.ST/25955/2013; I do not find any reason to sustain orders of lower authorities. In view of the foregoing, orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) M.V.RAVINDRAN JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3