TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fly the facts of the present case are that the appellants were issued a show-cause notice by Joint Commissioner of Service Tax dated 09.11.2006 demanding service tax totalling to Rs. 19,09,712/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve only) under the category of 'Tour Operator's Service' and 'Business Auxiliary Service' for the period from April 2000 to September 2005 and July 2003 to March 2005 along with penalties. The Joint Commissioner of Service Tax vide Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2006 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 19,09,712/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve only) as proposed in the show-cause notice along with interest and penalties. Appellant challenged t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant was bereft of allegation of suppression of fact etc and hence service tax demanded for the larger period was not sustainable. It was also held by the Joint Commissioner that the fact that major tour operators had instructed the appellant not to pay service tax had created sufficient confusion in their mind, as a result of which service tax was not paid. Accordingly the original authority passed order restricting the demand of service tax amount to Rs. 2,21,011/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty One Thousand and Eleven only) for the normal period under Tour Operator Services and Rs. 24,880/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty only) under Business Auxiliary Service. The said order of the Joint Commissioner was taken up f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed by him under sub-section (1) to the assessee, such adjudicating authority and the Board. (4) No order under this section shall be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in respect of any issue if an appeal against such issue is pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). (5) No order under this Section shall be passed after the expiry of two years from the date on which the order sought to be revised has been passed." He further submitted that as per Section 84 of the Finance Act it is clear that no order under Section 84 of the Act could be passed by the Commissioner in respect of any issue if an appeal against the said appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise. He further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) could not be subjected to revision by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Act since the Commissioner was virtually interfering with the appellate authority's decision which had attained finality for want of challenge. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not legal and proper on facts also and also on merit. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax by exercising his revision power under Section 84 of the Act is not sustainable in view of the Division Bench decision of t....