The High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The appellant sought permission to withdraw due to monetary limits being below the threshold. The substantial questions of law remain left open.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. Substantial questions of law are left open. No costs.
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 : 03.09.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1004 and 1005 of 2018
The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate, No.1, Foulk's Compound, Anai Medu, Salem-636 001. ... Appellant in both Appeals
-vs-
M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Sakthi Nagar, Appakudal, Bhavani Taluk, Erode-628 315. ... Respondent in both Appeals
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, to set aside the Final Order Nos.41743 and 41782 of 2017 passed in Appeal Nos.ST/174/2008 and ST/460/2009 dated 08.08.2017 respectively passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
For Appellant : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.Akhil Suresh
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.]
These appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Final Order Nos.41743 and 41782 of 2017 dated 08.08.2017.
2.The above appeals have been admitted on 26.04.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:-
“(i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in law holding that the service tax liability on reverse charge relating to legal fees paid to foreign service provider for the period April 2006 to July 2006 was taxable only with effect from 01.09.2009, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically
held that the liability under Section 66A commenced from 18.04.2006.
(ii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was right in remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for re-qualification of service tax liability excluding legal fees paid to foreign service provider, when the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it crystal clear that the liability commenced from 18.04.2006?
(iii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in law in deleting the mandatory penalty imposable under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, when there was a deliberate omission and evasion of payment service tax, which was detected pursuant to investigation?
(iv) Whether equal penalty is not imposable for deliberate evasion of payment of service tax when the same was invoked in Show Cause Notice in the remand cases?”
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
1.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, No.26, Sashtri Bhavan Annexe Building, Hoddows Road, Chennai-600 006.
GMY(26/09/2018)
The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate
M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
