TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, case remanded for re-quantification & penalty imposition. Failure to examine merits addressed.</h1> <h3>Arjun Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore</h3> Arjun Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 405 (Tri. - Bang.) , [2008] 15 VST 373 ... Issues involved:1. Commissioner's remand for re-quantification and penalty imposition.2. Failure to examine the issue on merits by Commissioner.3. Plea of limitation.4. Service Tax liability under 'Tour Operators' vs. 'Rent-a-Cab' services.5. Correctness of Commissioner's directions.6. Consideration of time bar plea.7. Appeal allowed by remand to Original Authority.Analysis:1. Commissioner's remand for re-quantification and penalty imposition:The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal remanding the case for re-quantification and imposition of a suitable penalty. The appellant challenged this remand on grounds that the Commissioner did not examine the issue on merits as per their submissions, including the plea of limitation. The appellant sought an open remand to contest the matter afresh.2. Failure to examine the issue on merits by Commissioner:The appellant contended that the Commissioner did not consider their submissions, including evidence of Service Tax discharge by Tour Operators, which was not taken into account. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their position, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the case on merits.3. Plea of limitation:The appellant argued that the demands were time-barred, citing the judgment in the case of CCE Vs. H.M.M Limited. They emphasized that the larger period for invoking demands was not applicable, drawing support from legal precedents such as CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments and Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE.4. Service Tax liability under 'Tour Operators' vs. 'Rent-a-Cab' services:The show cause notice demanded Service Tax under the category of 'Tour Operators,' while the Commissioner remanded the case for consideration under 'Rent-a-Cab' services. The Tribunal found this direction incorrect and emphasized the need for proper categorization and consideration of the original notice's terms.5. Correctness of Commissioner's directions:The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's directions for re-quantification under a different service category were not appropriate. The failure to consider the plea of demands being time-barred was also highlighted, leading to the decision to remand the case to the Original Authority for a fresh consideration.6. Consideration of time bar plea:The Tribunal found that the plea of demands being hit by limitation was not adequately addressed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Original Authority for a comprehensive review, including the consideration of the time bar issue.7. Appeal allowed by remand to Original Authority:In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Original Authority for a fresh determination within a specified timeframe. The decision aimed to ensure a fair consideration of all points, including the plea of time bar and merits, granting the appellants an opportunity for a full hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
