2016 (3) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat order is at Exhibit "A" to the present Appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Shah for the Appellants and Mr. Jetly for the Respondent. With their consent, we took up the Appeal for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The Appellants have set out several questions of law in paragraph 18, and which, according to them, are substantial questions that require to be decided. 4. It seems to us clear that the impugned order is wholly unsatisfactory. The CESTAT has simply recorded the contentions on both sides but has not given us the benefit of their reasons for their conclusion. 5. The controversy is narrow. The Appellant Company provides civil and mechanical construction services. It has a Mechanical Engineering Division. On 24th Augu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty imposed within thirty days as provided in the second proviso to Section 78 of the Act. 8. The Appellant carried the matter in Appeal to the CESTAT. On 26th February 2015, the CESTAT dismissed the Appeal by the impugned order. 9. Mr. Shah points out that apart from anything else, the CESTAT did not consider the questions specifically raised as to whether the Respondent, the Commissioner of Service Tax, had any jurisdiction to impose a penalty under Section 78 of the Act for a period prior to 13th May 2005. According to him, that authority, at the relevant time, remained only with the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and could not have been exercised by the present Respondent. 10. In addition, ....