2022 (11) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Department Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate - for the respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue assailing order-in-appeal dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur - II, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee and set aside the order-in-original....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties under sections 78, 77 and 75A of the Finance Act upon the respondent. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order relying on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur rendered on 27.06.2008 in Service Tax Appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as emended). I find that identical issue came up before the Larger Bench of Hon'ble CESTAT in case of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur in Service Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2006 when vide its Misc. Order No. ST/85/08 dated 276.06.2008 it held that taxable service provided by non-resident or from outside India, w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it further submits that the SLP filed before the Supreme Court by the Department against the decision of the Larger Bench was also dismissed on 23.01.2009. However, it asserts that a proposal for filing the review petition/application against dismissal of SLP is under consideration. The case of the Revenue is that although the Larger Bench of Tribunal has decided in favour of the assessee, which ....