Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Panchkula vs M/S. Liberty Shoes Limited on 26 April, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI COURT NO. III ST/MISC./1100/2009 & ST/STAY/3324/2009 IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 886 OF 2009 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.26/ST/PKL/2009 dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I, New Delhi] Dated of hearing/decision: 26th April, 2010 For approval and signature: Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, Member (Technical); Honble Mr. D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) 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 would 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, Panchkula Appellant Vs. M/s. Liberty Shoes Limited Respondents
Appearance:
Shri Sansar Chand, Authorised Representative (DR) for the Revenue; Shri K. Kant, Advocate for the respondents Coram:
Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, Member (Technical); Honble Mr. D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per D.N. PANDA:
Revenue has come in appeal with stay application and an application for early hearing.
2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), against appeal filed by the assessee, noticing that the services received by the appellants from non-resident persons during the period 1.1.2005 to 31.3.2005 were not liable to tax in the hands of the recipient assessee, allowed the appeal. To hold so, learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Indian National Shipowners Association vs. U.O.I., reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.).
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents objected to the appeal of the Revenue on preliminary ground that when there is no law there shall be neither adjudication nor recovery under the law, which has been rightly followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). But such proposition is opposed by the learned D.R. for Revenue.
4. The Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not show any legal inconsistency in view of the dismissal of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18932/2009 by the Apex Court filed by the department in the matter of Indian National Shipowners Association case (supra). There being no material brought to our notice as to whether the present case is different from the cited decision, we entertain the preliminary objection and dismiss the stay application of the Revenue. When we find there is no substance in the appeal, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue also. Consequently, Misc. application for early hearing is allowed.
(DR. C. SATAPATHY) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (D.N. PANDA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK 3