Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S Shiva Builders on 6 April, 2011

M/S Institute Of Chartered Financial ... vs Cce, Jaipur I on 15 November, 2016

5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, the facts are admitted that the adjudication order was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellants and the appeal was pending before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As per Section 84 (4) of the Finance Act, 1994 no order under this Section shall be passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax in respect of any issue if an appeal against such issue is pending before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). On plain reading of the above said provisions it is clear that if the adjudication order has been challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Commissioner of Service Tax seized his power to review the adjudication order. As appellant has challenged the leviability of penalty itself, therefore, question of enhancement of penalty does not arise. We further take note of judgment of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE vs. Shiva Builders (supra), the Honble High Court has observed as under :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Triveni Structurals Ltd vs C.C.E., Allahabad on 26 June, 2014

7. Judgments of the Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana High Courts in Union of India vs. Inani Carriers  2009 (13) STR 230 (Raj.; C.C.E. vs. Shiva Builders  2011 (22) STR 513 (P & H) are authorities for the proposition that if an issue is pending in appeal, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 84 could not be exercised. Since the appellant had preferred an appeal against the entirety of the adjudication order dated 22.2.2007 which included imposition of penalties thereunder as well and the issue regarding validity of imposition of penalty was equally the subject matter of appellate proceedings pending before the appellate Commissioner since 25.5.2007, the date on which the appeal preferred to that authority had culminated in the order dated 29.8.2007 dismissing the appeal, the initiation of revisional proceedings is unsustainable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Malayalam Communications Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 November, 2015

4. The learned advocate for the appellant vehemently argues that the revision proceedings are not valid when there was already an appeal pending before the Commissioner (A) against the order of the Joint Commissioner in their case. She mentioned that in respect of the same order, Commissioner started revision proceedings and issued a revision order though this order did not impose any penalty under Section 76. She cited the decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. Shiva Builders decided on 6.4.2011 in appeal STA No.51 of 2010 saying that when appeal had been preferred before Commissioner (A) exercise of power under Section 84(4) of Finance Act, 1994 was not valid.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1