Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 84 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S Shiva Builders on 6 April, 2011
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 :-
Union Of India vs M/S Inani Carriers & Anr on 21 November, 2008
Heard both sides and perused the records. We are not in agreement with the revenues submission, when we find that revenue did not wait to initiate suo-moto revision proceedings after examination of the appellate order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Within two months of passing of the order by the appellate authority on 16-6-2009, while first appellate order was passed on 16-4-2009. Similar such cases are coming before us frequently. It is embarrassing for us to declare exercise of jurisdiction by one Commissioner is bad and by the other good. But in this case we are compelled to declare that the Revisional order was unsustainable following the judgment of the Honble High Court of Rajasthan in the case cited (supra). When we noticed that this case is of similar nature, what that was before the Honble High Court of Rajasthan, where the first appellate order was passed on 13-10-2004 and notice for revision was issued on 12-8-2005, we dispose the appeal of the appellant as allowed, so also dispose the stay application.
Order of Rajasthan High Court referred in the order of the Tribunal is Union of India v. Inani Carriers - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 230 (Raj.).
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 76 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 1999
Section 76 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
1