M\/s. City Union Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Trichy
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 703 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 4-10-2018
ST\/ROA\/40191\/2017 and ST\/41054\/2015 – 42523\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nThe above application for restoration of appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to restore the appeal that was disposed by Final Order No. 40740\/2016 dated 5.5.2016.
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel shri J. Shankarraman submitted that on 5.5.2016, the appellant or the counsel could not appear<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . Subramaniam opposed the application. He submitted that the appeal having been disposed on merits, the restoration application cannot be allowed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s well as perusal of records, I am convinced that panthal and shamiana services availed by the appellant is essential for promotion of banking and financial services. The said services are utilized by the appellant to inform the public that a new branch has been started in the said place. Such services would help the appellant to attract customers and also inform the public about the new branch inaugurated. For these reason, I find that the disallowance of CENVAT credit on such input services cannot be justified. The credit availed by the appellant on panthal and shamiana services is therefore allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. City Union Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise TrichyService Tax2018 (10) TMI 703 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. – Chennai)CESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 4-10-2018ST\/ROA\/40191\/2017 and ST\/41054\/2015 – 42523\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. City Union Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Trichy”<\/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-14471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14471","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=14471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. First, I take up with regard to the restoration of the appeal. The ld. counsel has produced the proof of delivery as well as the copy of adjournment letter to support his claim that they had made a request for adjournment of the appeal, which was posted on 5.5.2016. However, the Tribunal has taken the matter for disposal and passed the exparte order. Since the appellant had diligently prosecuted the matter and had taken steps to request for adjournment of the matter, I am of the view that the final order passed disposing the appeal exparte requires to be recalled. So ord<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Ca<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n