2020 (3) TMI 1004

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ys in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-1343-CII-2020 3. This is an application for placing on record documents Annexures R-1 to R-5. 4. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The documents are taken on record. STA-23-2019 5. This is an appeal preferred by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh against the final order dated 24th October, 2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh ('CESTAT') in Appeal No. ST/53432/2014 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 (2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act'). 6. Among the questions soug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst the aforesaid order of the Commissioner to the extent that it was prejudicial to its interest. The CESTAT by an order dated 24th September, 2012 ordered the pre-deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority ('AA') for examining the evidence as well as the defence plea put forth by the Respondent, both on facts and law, and pass a reasoned order. 10. On remand, by an order dated 20th March, 2014, the AA confirmed the demand after allowing to the Respondent the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006 dated 1st March, 2006 and also ordered recovery of the interest amount and imposed applicable penalties. 11. For a second time, the Respondent filed an appeal before the CESTAT. By the order dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceedings in the said appeal have been annexed as Annexures R-1 to R-5 collectively. 14. Learned counsel for the Appellant is not disputing the fact that in some other instances involving the neat question of classification, appeals have been directly preferred to Supreme Court. It is pointed out that the scope of the remand by CESTAT in the first round was limited and that at that stage, the Respondent had not been permitted to raise the issue that the services provided by it was 'Works Contract Services'. 15. Learned counsel for the Respondent points out that at the stage of remand the Respondent had the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) and that therefore, it was open to the Respo....