PNB fraud due to failure of internal control, says RBI.:      Celeb jeweller Nirav Modi named in PNB’s $1.77-b fraud. Bank suspends 10 officers, lodges complaint with CBI; more banks may be hit. :      Bombay High Court in a hearing on 6th Feb, 2018 says GST regime is not user friendly. :      GST Network Chairman Ajay Bhushan return simplification panel to meet industry this week to simplify the return filing process.:    Finance Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said the Government stares at a Rs 50,000 crore GST revenue shortfall in the current fiscal. :    E-Way Bill which was to be rolled-out on 1st Feb is deferred to month-end due to technical glitches.:      TN raked in 22% more GST at Rs 23,318 crore between Jul-Dec 2017, against Rs 19,018 crore under VAT in the corresponding period the previous year. :      MoS,Corp Affairs PP Chaudhary says in Rajya Sabha that Govt has detected GST evasion of Rs 5.70 Crores in 16 cases during Jul-Nov 2017 - 6th Feb 2018. :      FM, Arun Jaitley says that States are not in favour of bringing the petroleum products under GST. :      The Finance Secretary, Hasmukh Adhia says out of 7 lakh tax payers who opted for composition scheme 5 lakhs had a turnover less than Rs 5 lakhs pa, though the exemption limit is upto Rs 20 lakhs. :     

CESTAT Chennai : S.R. Cabs & Ors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, & ST Tiruchirapalli : 14th March, 2017

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI

Appeal Nos.ST/18/2007, ST/20-22/2007
ST/24/2007 & ST/27/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.74/2006-TRY ST dt. 28.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]

1. S.R. Cabs
2. Raj Transports
3. P. Ramadas
4. Vinolia Tourist Cabs
5. R. Sundaramurthy
6. V. Ayyappan
Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, & ST Tiruchirapalli
Respondent

Appearance:
Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member

Date of Hearing / decision : 14.03.2017


FINAL ORDER No.40496-40501/2017

Per D.N. Panda

Revenue has not produced adjudication order although that was ordered on 31.01.2017 for production today. More than 45 days have expired but there is no response.


2. Ld. D.R. says that necessary communication has been made to ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at Trichy for sending the records to Tribunal and reply thereon is yet to be received.


3. Ld. Counsel says that these are the cases pertaining to Rent-a-Cab services intended to be taxed. Even though appellant submitted a copy of communication made to ONGC by department on 31.12.2001 for consideration of the issue of limitation for the years 2000-01 to 2005-06, that aspect was not dealt in the impugned order. If the appellant is given fair opportunity of hearing and reasoned order is passed on the basis of law settled, appellants may not have grievance and not deprived of the process of justice.



4. Revenue, on the other hand, contends that plea of limitation was neither raised before adjudicating authority nor appellate authority.


5. Heard both sides. Plea of limitation goes to the root of the matter. Relevant facts which germane to the issue are required to be brought to record for ultimate resolution of dispute both on question of facts and law. Therefore, Revenue's plea that issue of limitation was not raised before the authorities below does not get sanction of law since that dispute is alive before Tribunal.


6. Without dilating the matter further, we expect that if these appeals go back to ld. Adjudicating Authority, he shall threadbare examine all aspects of taxability including limitation issue granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant.


7. The authority granting full opportunity of hearing shall pass appropriate order recording pleadings, evidence and reason of his decision. Since the matters are very old, it is expected that the authority within 6 months of receipt of this order shall pass appropriate order.


8. In the course of hearing, Ld. counsel says that appellant Shri P.Ramadas (Appeal ST/21/2007) has expired in the meantime as per the death certificate issued by the Registering Authority of municipal administration of Kumbakonam Municipality. In such event, appeal of P. Ramadas is abated. Accordingly, that is disposed in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.


9. All five appeals are remanded to original authority with the direction above.


(Dictated and pronounced in open court)


(Madhu Mohan Damodhar)                 (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member                     Judicial Member


gs

Additional Info

  • Date Range: Tuesday, 14 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Service Tax
  • Petitioner/Appellant: S.R. Cabs & Ors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, & ST Tiruchirapalli
  • Respondent: S.R. Cabs & Ors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, & ST Tiruchirapalli
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Appeal Nos.ST/18/2007, ST/20-22/2007 ST/24/2007 & ST/27/2007
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Chennai
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 

correctly?

If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes

 

  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues


 

Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Go to top