Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Phoenix Power Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 29 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/20862/2014 in ST/20776/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/20776/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 65/2013 dated 10/12/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I( Appeals)] For approval and signature: HON'BLE MRS ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Phoenix Power Products Door No.44-38-12/23, AVS Paradise, 80 Feet Road, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam 530 016 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I Central Excise Building Port Area Visakhapatnam 530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, DR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 29/10/2015 Date of Decision: 29/10/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22118 / 2015 Per: ARCHANA WADHWA Nobody appeared for the appellant neither is there any adjournment request. We also note that the matter has been coming up repeatedly on record, when the same was being adjourned in the interest of justice. Accordingly we have gone through the impugned order and have heard the learned DR appearing for the Revenue.
2. Dispute in the present appeal involves the service tax liability on Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services, Works Contract Service as also Business Auxiliary Service. In respect of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service the appellant has taken a stand that work was undertaken for Government Statutory Body which subsequently was exempted retrospectively vide Notification No. 12/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012. As regards Works Contract Service the appellants stand is that the service was provided to SEZ units and in respect of Business Auxiliary Service, it stands pleaded that it is not the commission earned by them but is an incentive or a trade discount which was given to them by the service recipient.
3. We find that all these arguments of the assessee require factual verification. Learned DR has brought to our notice that the appellants have not provided any evidence to show that the service was actually provided in the SEZ area or they received incentives or extra trade discounts in respect of Business Auxiliary Service. Inasmuch as the said issues are factual issues requiring full verification, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, after verifying the appellants claim. Needless to say that the appellant would cooperate in the matter and would produce documentary evidence to substantiate their pleadings. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in the above terms.
(Order pronounced in open court) (ASHOK K ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss