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 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S. Suzuki Motor Corpn on 15 May, 2012

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III


ST Appeal No. 505  of  2008 

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 41/VKG/CST/2008  dated 30.4.2008  passed by  the Commissioner of  Service Tax, New Delhi   ]
	
For approval and signature:
     
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mathew John, 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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner of  Service Tax                                       Appellants 
Delhi 

Vs.


M/s. Suzuki Motor Corpn.                                                  Respondent
	
Appearance: 

Shri P.K. Saharan, AR   for the Appellants	
Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the Respondent 


CORAM: 	

Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mathew John, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision :  15.5.2012

ORAL  ORDER NO . ________________________

Per Archana Wadhwa ( for the Bench):

Revenues appeal is against the order of Commissioner vide which he has dropped the proceedings to confirm the Service Tax in respect of transfer of technical know-how by foreign corporation to the respondents and has accepted the respondents stand that the same does not fall under the category of consulting engineering service.

2. We find that the Revenues appeal for the earlier period in respect of same respondents stand rejected by the Tribunal reported as CCE vs. Suzuki Motor Corpn. [2012((25) STR 266 (Tri-Del)] . As the issue is identical to earlier order of the Tribunal, we reject the present appeal also.

 (Pronounced in the open court )


                                                                                (  Archana Wadhwa   )        							           Member(Judicial)
     
       
       
       
   							              (  Mathew John    )           							            Member(Technical) 
ss




2