AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—1. This appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 19.11.2014 passed in Final Order No. 22054/2014 on the file of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru and to uphold the Order passed in Appeal No. 351/2012 dated 27.12.2012, raising the following substantial questions of law.
"i) Under the given circumstances, whether assessee can claim benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 when goods [films, chemicals etc.] are neither sold nor reflected in invoice, nor VAT is paid/discharged on it and whether such contract shall not be treated as ''service simplicitor'' in view of decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in;
a. C.K. JIDHEESH v/s. UOI [, 2006 (1) STR 3(SC)].
b. Rainbow Colour Lab Vs. State of M.P. [, 2002-TIOL-373-SC-CT]
c. BSNL Vs. Union of India [2006-TIOL-87-SC-CT-LB]
d. STO Vs. B.C. Kame 1976 (12) TMT 164 - Supreme Court of India
e. S.S. Photographic Lab Pvt. Ltd., V/s. State of Assam & Ors. , (2011) 19 STJ P. 569 (HC-Guwahati)
ii. Whether extended period can be invoked in this case as infirmity surfaced only during the conduct of audit."
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. To substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the division Bench of this court in the case of ''COMMISSIONER v. ADLABS'' reported in 2010 [18] STR J85 (Kar.)].
In reply, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the law laid down by this court and submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the instant appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent are placed on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, following the Judgment of this court in Adlabs'' case [supra] and for the reasons stated therein, the instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. In view of the appeal being dismissed as not maintainable, answering the substantial questions of law in this appeal does not arise.
However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to redress its grievance before the appropriate competent forum, if so advised.