Commissioner Of Service Tax Gurgaon v. Tower Vision India Pvt Ltd Gurgaon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH STA No. 39 of 2015 (O&M) Decided on : 01.02.2016 Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi-IV, Gurgaon . . . Appellant
Versus
Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for the appellant-revenue.
**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This appeal is against the order dated 30.07.2015 (Annexure A1), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Misc. Appeal No. ST/Misc/50410/2015-CU[DB] in Appeal No.ST/55227/2013-CU[DB]. The revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the Misc. Order No. MO/ST/52850-52853/2015CU(DB) dated 30.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed by CESTAT tagging the appeals of any other party with some earlier reference made to a larger bench adjudging the difference of opinion among Members, is legally correct;
ii) Whether CESTAT's decision to create a larger bench to unsettle an issue that is already settled in favour of the Revenue by the judgments of different High Courts is legally correct ?"
2.
A perusal of questions as claimed would show the revenue has sought to urge that the Tribunal in constituting a larger Bench was not justified. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate that the Tribunal had erred in any manner in constituting a larger Bench to JAWALA RAM 2016.02.12 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
STA No. 39 of 2015 (O&M) - 2 - adjudicate an issue authoritatively which was otherwise not concluded by any judgment of the Apex Court or by any binding precedent of this Court. 3.
In view thereof, no substantial questions of law as claimed arise.
4.
Dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAJ RAHUL GARG) February 01, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram JAWALA RAM 2016.02.12 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh