M\/s. Swagat Constructions Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1594 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 9-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/541\/2012 – Final Order No. 42212\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nMs. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri B. Balamurugan, AC (AC) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe above appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of predeposit.
\n2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel for the appellant Ms. D. Naveen submitted that the issue involved is demand <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai reported in 2018 (6) TMI 800 CESTAT Chennai. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Swagat Constructions Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, CoimbatoreService Tax2018 (9) TMI 1594 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 9-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/541\/2012 – Final Order No. 42212\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AC) … Continue reading “M\/s. Swagat Constructions Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore”<\/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-14072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14072","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=14072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14072\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order and submitted that he matter requires to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. After hearing the submissions as well as perusal of records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit. During the stay application, the Tribunal has observed that the amount of Rs. 36,63,065\/- deposited by the appellant is sufficient compliance of predeposit. We agree to the said observation by the Tribunal in the stay application and matt<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n