COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SACHIN MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions arise in these appeals, we are disposing of these matters by the following common judgment.

(2.) These appeals are filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The following is the substantial question of law, which is projected in the appeals:

(3.) The impugned order is passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). By the same, the Tribunal has taken the view that, for imposing service tax within the meaning of Section 65(105)(o) of the Service Tax Act, the hirer must have possession of the vehicle in question. It has also found that, as far as the respondents / assessees are concerned, they had intimated the Department about their activities in the year 2000, itself, and it is noted further that the show-cause notices were issued beyond the normal period of limitation. The matter has been remitted to be re-done on the basis of the observations / principles, which were laid down and subject to the proceedings being found within limitation.