Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.S.N.I. Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 12 November, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.S/205 to 208/2008
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.52/2008 (SLM)(ST) dated 17.06.2008, 53/2008 (SLM)(ST) and 55 & 56/2008 (SLM)(ST) all dated 18.06.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s.S.N.I. Industries
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), Salem
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M. Rajendran, Adv. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 12.11.2009 Date of decision : 12.11.2009 Final Order No.____________ All these cases involve a common issue and are hence heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. In the above cases, show-cause notice were issued proposing rejection of abatement claim by the assessees who paid service tax on receipt of Goods Transport Agency service and proposing recovery of differential service tax together with interest and proposing penal action. The ground on which it was proposed to deny the facility of abatement from the actual freight paid was that the facility of abatement was not available to them as they were discharging service tax liability while the service was provided by the GTA. The adjudication orders, however, reject the claim for abatement on the ground that the conditions stipulated for seeking abatement are not fulfilled by the assessees and the adjudication order has been upheld by the lower appellate authority. In view of the fact that the ground on which the demands stand confirmed was not a ground in the show-cause notice, the demands cannot be sustained. On this ground alone, without further going into the matter, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 13-11-2009 ??
??
??
??
2