M/s. Aascar Film (P) Limited Versus The Commissioner Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 383 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 161 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-12-2018
W.P.No.32669 of 2018 And W.M.P.No.37875 of 2018
Service Tax
Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu
For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan
For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Hemalatha Standing Counsel
ORDER
Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondent. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This Writ Petition is filed against the order in original No.26/2018 dated 18.07.2018.
3. Heard the lea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ity should have given two more opportunities, by way of adjournment to file such reply, as contemplated under Section 33-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
6. Perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the respondent, impugned in this writ petition does not support the above claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice dated 13.01.2017, calling upon them to show cause within the time stipulated therein as to why the service rendered by them in relation to sale of space to products placement in the motion picture should not be classified as 'Services' under Section 65(B) read with 65B(51) and the services in relation to temporar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
5.2018 clearly discloses that the petitioner though repeatedly asked for extension of time to file reply, had not submitted any reply, even though such time was granted. When such being the factual position I do not think that the learned counsel for the petitioner is entitled to contend that the Adjudicating Authority has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Neither Section 33-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, contemplates the opportunity as expected by the petitioner herein.
Therefore, the order of adjudication passed by the respondent cannot be questioned before this Court under a writ jurisdiction, by complaining as if the principles of natural justice is violated.
8. Needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =