New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 617 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 5-7-2018
APPEAL No. ST\/88122\/2017 – A\/86957\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Pramod Khera, Advocate, for appellant
\nShri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent
\nORDER
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. When the matter was called for hearing on 29th May 2018, learned AR for Revenue was directed by the Bench to call for the report from department regarding deposit of the disputed amount in question, by the appellant. Pursuant to such direction by the Bench, the Assistant Commissioner (Division-VII), Mumbai Central Commissionerate, vide letter dated 4.<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for proper computation of the service tax liability and for ascertaining the fact whether, the adjudged amount, in question, had already been deposited by the appellant, as contended by the learned Advocate. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, MumbaiService Tax2018 (8) TMI 617 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 5-7-2018APPEAL No. ST\/88122\/2017 – A\/86957\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Pramod Khera, Advocate, for appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Heard both sides. 2. When the matter was called … Continue reading “New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, I remand the matter to the original authority for passing a fresh adjudication order in line with the above observations. The original authority should also decide the issue whether, the appellant is liable to pay interest and penalty under the circumstances of the case. Needless to say that opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the appellant before deciding the issue afresh.
\n5. In the result, the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n