TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ajmer Automobiles have filed cross-objection. The second Appeal is ST/46/2008-SM filed by M/s. Ajmer Automobiles (P) Ltd against the Order-in-Original 135/07-Commissioner (S.T.) dated 25-10-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Jaipur-II under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Both these Appeals originated from SCN C. No. V (S.T.) 187/AJM/2005 dated 10-8-2005 and the first decision was by Joint Commissioner vide Order No. 09/ST/JP-II/2005 - Joint Commissioner dated 25-11-2005. (In some places this date is shown as 23-12-2005 which is the date of issue of order whereas 25-11-05 is the date of the decision). The order portion is reproduced below. "(i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 2,43,406/- (Rupees two lakh forty th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order the party went in Appeal. The Commissioner (Appeal) by his order dated 31-3-2006 set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner. The operative part of the order is reproduced below :- "I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made by the appellants at the time of personal hearing as well as in their appeal memo. The issue involved in this case is whether the so called incentive/commission/income received from various finance Co. and Banks would be chargeable to Service Tax as 'Business Auxiliary service.' The appellants have disputed their Service Tax liability and denied that they have rendered any services to finance Co. and Banks as they have not received any amount in excess to cost of car. I find th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 78 ibid on the assessee." 6. Aggrieved by this order M/s. Ajmer Automobiles have filed Appeal No. ST. 46/2008-SM. 7. When the SCN dated 30-7-2007 was issued the order-in-original dated 25-11-2005 was already set aside by order dated 31-3-2006 and the original order was non-est. So a review of the order was not sustainable. So the Order-in-Original dated 23-10-2007 issued by the Commissioner is not maintainable. However, the same matter is the subject matter of Appeal No. 262/2006 filed by the department which is maintainable. 8. Now, the Appeal filed by the department against order of Commissioner (Appeal) is to be decided. 9. It may be noted that the issued involved in this case is whether serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on which Maruti Udyog Ltd. had paid Service Tax. It is decided by the Tribunal in Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. v. C.C.E. Kochi - 2010 (18) S.T.R. 493 that in such situation tax is not payable again on the same amount. It is to be kept in mind that during the relevant period Cenvat credit scheme was not applicable for service tax. 13. The Ld DR replied arguing that a wrong section mentioned in the SCN cannot be fatal to the proceedings so long as there is a provision available in the statute book on the date of issue of SCN which would sustain the SCN if the facts relevant for understanding the offence and the nature of offence are stated in the SCN though with an error in section number. He relies on the following case law in....