Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Itc Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax, ... on 17 November, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
MA-140/10 & S.T. Appeal No.150/09
Arising out of Order-in-Original No.9-13/ST/Commissioner/2009 dated 25.3.2009 passed by Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna.
For approval and signature:
SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT
SHRI S. K. GAULE, HONBLE 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? :
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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s ITC Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Shekhar B. Saraf, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri B. B. Agarwal, Commr. (A.R.) for the Department CORAM:
SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT SHRI S. K. GAULE, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of hearing & decision : 17.11.2011 ORDER NO.. Per Shri S. S. Kang :
Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax whereby demand of service tax with interest is confirmed on the ground that the appellants provided business auxiliary service which is taxable under the Service Tax Rules. The Commissioner also imposed penalty.
2. The appellants submitted that they have filed a Miscellaneous Application for bringing on record certain information received under RTI Act after passing of the adjudication order. The appellants also want to produce Chartered Accountants Certificate in support of their claim that the appellants have not provided any business auxiliary service.
3. The appellants submitted that they were supplying packing materials to their other unit on payment of appropriate duty and certain credit and debit notes are exchanged between different units to settle the accounts. The case of the Revenue is that the amounts collected as Inter-Division Charges as shown in their trial balance on receipt of Business Auxiliary Service.
4. The appellants relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal to submit that the services provided to their own other unit are not liable for service tax :
(i) Precot Mills Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Tirupati 2006 (2) STR 495 (Tri.-Bang.) ;
(ii) IOC Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Patna 2007 (8) STR 527 (Tri.-Kol.) ;
(iii) Senior Terminal Manager, IOC Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Tirunelveli 2009 (13) STR 287 (Tri.-Chennai) ;
(iv) Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Salem 2010 (19) STR 424 (Tri.-Chennai).
5. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants are providing business auxiliary service to other units, therefore, they are liable to service tax.
6. Ld.Commissioner (A.R.) for the Department submitted that the information obtained under the RTI Act is a different issue and cannot be hampered the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order in respect of allegations in the show-cause notice and evidences on record in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the appellants failed to explain the charges of Inter-Division Charges/Intra Corporate Charges reflected in their trial balance. Therefore, the demand is rightly waived.
7. We find that the appellants filed the Miscellaneous Application whereby certain information in respect of audit conducted by the Revenue authorities is obtained and the contention is that in view of the explanation given by the appellant, the audit objections were dropped. We find that the information received by the appellants after passing of the adjudication order, under the RTI Act, is relevant to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, we find that the matter requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after taking into consideration the relevance of the documents now produced and also taking into consideration the case laws relied upon by the appellants, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Revenue is also at liberty to produce evidence in support of the allegations. The appeal is disposed off by way of remand. MA also disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
Sd/ Sd/
( S. K. GAULE) ( S. S. KANG )
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
mm
4
ST.Appeal No.150/09