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 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Dhamora Enterprises vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 7 January, 2014

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.



Date of hearing/decision: 07.01.2014



For Approval and Signature:



Honble Ms.  Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)



1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
  No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
 No
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
 Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
 Yes
Service Tax  Appeal No. 58549  of 2013 with 

Service Tax Stay No. 59144 of 2013

(Arising out of the Order in Appeal No. 116/VC/CE/JPR-II/2013 dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Jaipur).



M/s Dhamora Enterprises				Appellant

 

Vs.



CCE, Jaipur-II						Respondent

Appearance:

Shri O.P. Agarwal, C. A. for the appellant Shri Devender Singh, Jt. CDR for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 50066 / 2014 Per: Archana Wadhwa:
Demand of service tax of Rs.28,590/- stands confirmed against the appellant alongwith imposition of penalties on the ground of renting of immovable property, by invoking the longer period of limitation. The demand pertains to the period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2010 whereas the show cause notice stands issued on 05.07.2011.

2. An identical dispute on the point of limitation was resolved by the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-II  2013-TIOL-315-CESTAT-DEL (CESTAT Del.). It was held that by retrospective amendment to undo the effect of judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retail India Limited, no suppression can be attributed to the assessee and longer period would not be available to the Revenue.

3. Following the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above terms.

(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Pant