Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging CESTAT orders were dismissed as moot. The court noted a subsequent order by CESTAT disposing of the underlying tax appeal, leaving no need to adjudicate the raised legal questions.
The instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed with substantial questions of law left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
C.M.A.Nos.2996 and 2997 of 2017
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-III, Chennai.
versus
M/s.RMC Ready Mix India Pvt. Ltd., AC-26, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Thirumudivakkam, Chennai-44.
.. Respondent in both CMAs/Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Final Order No.40130 of 2014, dated 11.02.2014 (C.M.A.No.2996 of 2017) and Miscellaneous Order No.40352 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015 (C.M.A.No.2997 of 2017), passed by the CESTAT, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Manoj
COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgement of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the orders of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Final Order No.40130 of 2014, dated 11.02.2014 and Miscellaneous Order No.40352 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015, respectively.
transportation of the item and supplied the same at the site, where construction took place. The vehicles used for this purpose had facility for pumping ready mix concrete from the container, on the vehicle, to the work site and the material was so supplied by pumping, for which, pumping charges were collected. Since service tax liability was attracted on "pumping charges", under the category, "Transportation of goods through pipeline or conduit", as defined in Section 65(105)(zzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, proceedings were initiated against the respondent, demanding service tax, amounting to Rs.23,27,306/-, for a period from 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2006, apart from interest and penalty.
27.03.2009.
"3. I have carefully examined the ROM and submissions of both sides and perused the records and this Tribunal's Final Order dated 11/02/2014 wherein the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the penalty imposed by the Revision Authority. I find that the adjudicating authority in his OIO dated 16/07/2007 confirmed the demand of service tax and dropped all the penalty proceedings under section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance ACT, 1994. Against this order the appellant preferred appeal against the demand of service tax and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 32/2009 dated 27/07/2009 allowed their appeal by setting aside the demand. It is noticed that the jurisdictional Commissioner reviewed the OIO and issued revision notice 3/2008 dated 28/02/2008 in terms of powers vested under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, against dropping of all penalties under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Act by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner in his revision order dated 27/03/2009 imposed penalty of Rs.25,00,000/under Section 78 of the Act. Appellant filed the present appeal against the revision order. Tribunal in Final Order dated 11/02/2014 allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
not filed any appeal against this order of Commissioner (Appeals). As seen from the records that appeal No.ST/505/09 is still pending for disposal. Therefore, Tribunal while recording the facts at para-2 that there is no appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is appear to be an omission.
"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of CESTAT in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent was correct in law?"
"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of CESTAT in refusing to recall the Final Order for purpose of hearing the appeals together was correct in law even after admitting and correcting the mistake?"
appeals, submitted that subsequently, CESTAT, Chennai, has passed Final Order No.41563 of 2017 in Appeal No.ST/505/2009, dated 09.08.2017, filed by the appellant, against the Order-inAppeal No.32/2009 (MST), dated 27.07.2009, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, setting aside the demand of tax.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
skm
To
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.K.Vaitheswaran, Advocate SR.No.76454 +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR.No.76521
C.M.A.Nos.2996 and 2997 of 2017
SR(CO) GN(04/12/2017)
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-III
M/s.RMC Ready Mix India Pvt. Ltd.
S.MANIKUMAR
R.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
