TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (ST), Aurangabad, and directed implementation of order-in-appeal No. JAK(57)202/09 dated 23 rd September 2009. Departmental appeal contends that the misdirection in the impugned order requiring the lower authority to proceed on the assumption that the predecessor order dated 23 rd September 2009 had decided upon the eligibility of M/s Himalaya Tyres for threshold limit, applicable to small service-providers under notification no. 6/2005-ST dated 1 st March 2005, should be set aside. An additional ground has been incorporated seeking imposition of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The introduction of additional ground of appeal through the review undertaken in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enance and repair service' since October 2005. Respondent had paid service tax of Rs. 1,43,487/- for the period from 16 th June 2005 to 31 st March 2007 after availing the benefit of notification no. 12/2003-St dated 20 th June 2003. It was alleged in the show cause notice that assessee was liable to tax of Rs. 5,60,235/- on the entire invoiced amount of Rs. 50,54,494/- because the exemption was incorrectly availed by them; the exemption allowed abatement of goods sold along with rendering of service and to the extent that it was separately billed in the invoice. 4. Our attention has been drawn in the cross-objection filed by assessee that this dispute was taken to the Commissioner (Appeals) twice before the review that led to the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would not like to comment on the travails that the assessee has been compelled to undergo because of unwillingness of departmental authorities to respect the adjudicatory hierarchy. We can only extend our sympathies and hope that this is an exception and not the norm. We would also desist from making any observations about the apparent lack of communication and coordination within the same establishment that has led to this sorry state of affairs. 6. Our second reason for not deciding on merits is prompted by the letter of respondent dated 8 th January, 2016 placed before us in lieu of representation and seeks dismissal of appeal of Revenue as the amount in dispute is below the threshold limit that allows exercise of discretion in refus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is humbly submitted that the stated Policy i.e., the Litigation Policy is to be implemented by the field formations of the Department after examining each appeal where the same is to be withdrawn in terms of the parameters contained in the Policy and thereupon the Chief Commissioner / Commissioner is required to file an application for withdrawal. The ARs being the representative of the Chief Commissioners/ Commissioners, in the absence of any application for withdrawal, the Hon'ble CESTAT may not proceed with the disposal of Department's appeal citing the parameters contained in the Policy. Further, in the absence of instructions from the jurisdictional Chief Commissioners/Commissioners, it is not appropriate for the ARs to comment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority has reached a conclusion that the said matter is covered by the instruction supra. Authorized Representatives may, probably, be unaware of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. For those who are ignorant of them, we draw attention to Rule 40. Control over departmental authorities in certain matters: The Tribunal shall exercise control over the departmental authorities in relation to all matters arising out of the exercise of the powers or of the discharge of the functions of the Tribunal. Chief Commissioner (AR) is advised to convey the gravity of the statutory conferment supra and ensure that all his officers are aware of the consequences of transgression. The Tribunal is not subject to any departmental authority and is not required....