Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

M/S Paramount Wire And Cable Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 October, 2018

Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Central/excise Appeal No. 9/2018
M/s Paramount Wire And Cable Ltd., Sp-30A, RIICO Industrial
Area, Khukhera, Bhiwadi Distt. Alwar Raj. Through Arvind
Gangwar, Authorized Signatory
                                                               ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1          Union Of India Through Commissioner Of Central
.          Excises, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur-I


2.         Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax Appellate
           Tribunal, R.k. Puram, New Delhi
                                                            ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Shri P.K. Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Shri Siddharth Ranka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 22/10/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgements of this Court in Palecha Trade Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India-2018 (14) G.S.T.L. 351 (Raj.) and Narain Prasad Gattani vs. UOI & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1459/2013 dated 4.10.2017.

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether, a show cause notice dated 30.07.2008 issued to the appellant, without mentioning the specific clause of sub-Section 19 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 of Business Auxiliary Services and all the subsequent proceedings is legally sustainable while holding the appellant is liable for the service tax, penalty (2 of 2) [CEA-9/2018] and interest on the commission received from the main share broker by the CESTAT is proper?

2. Whether, the CESTAT was justified in holding that Commission received by the appellant of Rs. 11,49,392/- for the service provided to the main broker is not amounts to double taxation, irrespective of the fact that main broker has paid the service tax on the whole amount?

3. Whether, the CESTAT was justified in holding that challenge of demand on the question of time barred cannot be sustained, without examining the show cause notice and period involved, such conclusion is legally sustainable?"

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J RS/19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)