CHIPLUN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR
LAWS(CE)-2015-9-7
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 30,2015

Chiplun Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kolhapur Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX V/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.V.RAVINDRAN,J - (1.)These 3 appeals are directed against Orders -in -Appeal No. PII/AV/03/2011 dated 25.02.2011 and PII/RKS/135/2011 dated 24.11.2011. Revenue as well as the assessee are aggrieved by the impugned orders hence both challenge the findings of the first appellate authority, which are against them.
(2.)The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant assessee herein is a Co -operative Society formed in Chiplun, Ratnagiri. The said Society is of members and is engaged in accepting deposits, lending and operation of the accounts. After an investigation, it was noticed that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability on the various fees collected by them from the members in respect of the functioning of the Society. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued demanding differential tax liability with interest and also proposing for imposition of penalties. Appellant assessee contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised with interest and also imposed penalties. On an appeal, the first appellate authority also agreed with the order in original that the service tax liability arises along with interest, but agreed with the contentions of the appellant assessee that the tax liability needs to be reworked. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of by reworking the tax liability interest thereof and upholding penalties under Sec. 77 and 78 but set aside the penalties imposed under Sec. 76 of the finance act 1994. Appellant assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of demand and the consequences thereof, while revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority should have upheld the order in original in total.
(3.)At this juncture, learned Counsel submits that an identical issue of the very same assessee in appeal number ST/66/12 is listed for disposal on 01.10.2015 and may be taken up for disposal along with this appeal. The case records were called for from the Registry and ascertaining that the issue is the same and in respect of the very same appellant assessee, the said appeal is also disposed of by this order.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.