Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kellogg And Andelson Management ... vs Cst Ch - Ii on 23 July, 2019
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 40331 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 210 to 217/2016 (STA-II) dated 18.11.2016
passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Newry Towers, 3rd Floor, Plot
No. 2054, I Block, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040)
M/s. Kellogg and Andelson Management : Appellant
Service Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 702, MLS Business Centres,
No. 4, Kuppu Arcade, Venkatnarayana Road,
T. Nagar,
Chennai - 600
VERSUS
The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, : Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No. 2054/1, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 40332 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 210 to 217/2016 (STA-II) dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Newry Towers, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2054, I Block, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040) M/s. Kellogg and Andelson Management : Appellant Service Pvt. Ltd., No. 702, MLS Business Centres, No. 4, Kuppu Arcade, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 VERSUS The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, : Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No. 2054/1, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 APPEARANCE:
Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. S. Govindarajan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent 2 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NOs. 41697-41702/ 2018 dated 23.05.2018 READ WITH FINAL ORDER NOs. 40948-40949 / 2019 dated 23.07.2019 DATE OF HEARING: 23.05.2018 CORRIGENDUM When the case was called out today, Ms. S. Sridevi, Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee-appellant submits that, in all, 8 appeals were clubbed together, heard and disposed of in Appeal Nos. ST/40329- 40336/2017 vide Final Order Nos. 41697-41702/2018 dated 23.05.2018. However, she points out that while allotting the Final Order numbers, only 6 numbers have been given whereas 8 numbers should have been given by the Registry, in respect of each appeal.
1.2 Ld. Advocate submits that there is no other additional issue, more so because these appeals listed today were also heard and taken up for common disposal along with the other appeals.
2. The same view is supported by Shri. S. Govindarajan, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue.
3. I find that the assertion of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant is correct as this is a mistake committed while allotting the Final Order numbers, since I find that the appeals do not survive otherwise. Therefore, the Registry is directed to allot additional Final Order numbers for the above two appeals. Directed accordingly.
(P. DINESHA) Sdd MEMBER (JUDICIAL)