2016 (11) TMI 707

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....known as Sterling Projects Engineering and Enterprises Limited and after which, the name was changed as Siva Projects Engineering and Enterprises Limited. The petitioner is engaged in Erection, Installation and Commissioning of Telecommunication Towers during the period from April 2009 to September 2011. The petitioner obtained Service Tax Registration from the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai for the following services: (i) Business Auxiliary Service, (ii) Business Support Service, (iii) Management Consultant Service and (iv) Works Contract Service. The respondent issued two show cause notices, dated 10.10.2011 and 11.4.2012 for the period from April 2009 to July 2010 and August 2010 to September 2011 respectively demanding servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No.732/48/2003-CX dated 5.8.2003 has been relied on, wherein the Board has taken a serious view of the matter and directed that in all cases of adjudication, where personal hearing has been concluded, it is necessary to communicate the decision immediately or within a reasonable time of five days and where for certain reasons the time limit cannot be adhered to in a particular case, an order should be issued within 15 days or at most one month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing. Therefore, it is submitted that since the Circular issued by CBEC is binding on the respondent and the same has not been adhered to, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent would subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roviding the service is includible in the taxable value of service. 7. The Bombay High Court in Synerfa Engineering (supra), while considering the correctness of the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suzlon Infrastructure,  has set aside the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground of delay. Since the order was passed by the CESTAT, after six months from the date of concluding the hearing of the appeal and the Tribunal did not specifically deal with vital issues, which have been pointed out by the appellant before the Bombay High Court and as well the directions given by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation, the said judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. Thus,....