2019 (2) TMI 82 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – TMI – Penalty u/s 11AC of CEA – Time Limitation – whether the Tribunal had erred in holding that the demand is beyond the period of one year from the relevant date and is time barred? – Held that:- If the assessee is not dissatisfied with the findings recorded by the Tribunal on first four issues, he cannot be allowed to say that the department should be required to file appeal even against the part of the judgment of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court particularly when the department itself has accepted finality of that part of the judgment by which the matter has been remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for its fresh findings – The question of limitation and demand being time barred will have to be decided independently.
–
The department has been able to make out a case for recall of order dated 11.04.2018 passed by this Court – The application is allowed. – D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 193/2018 In D.B. Ce
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
in earlier judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited, 2013 (30) STR 451 (Del) was also relied upon. Learned counsel for the applicant-revenue submitted that the issue involved in the appeal was whether the Tribunal had erred in holding that the demand is beyond the period of one year from the relevant date and is time barred and further whether the Tribunal erred in dropping the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act on the assessee. Learned counsel submitted that the question before the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Ernest & Young Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was of determination of any question in relation to rate of duty and therefore, the appeal would have been maintainable before the Supreme Court in that case. Even if the appellant-applicant had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, it would not have been maintainable, argued the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent assessee submitted t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Notification No. 3/2005-CE dated 24.2.2005 (Sr. No. 9) in respect of chocolate syrup, Butter Scotch, Blue curacao. Grenadine, Mint, Orange, Triple Seed, Caramel, Natural Caramel, Vanila, Lime (all falling under Chapter Heading 2108.91/21069040) on the ground that the same do not bear brand name of the assessee/appellant. (iv) Goods sold without brand name- Eligibility of exemption benefit under Notification No. 3/2005-CE (supra) (Sr. No. 10) to the item Mixed Seasoning Chinese Flavour. (v) Demand is time barred and penalty not imposable. If the assessee is not dissatisfied with the findings recorded by the Tribunal on first four issues, he cannot be allowed to say that the department should be required to file appeal even against the part of the judgment of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court particularly when the department itself has accepted finality of that part of the judgment by which the matter has been remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for its fresh findin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =