Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce & St, Lucknow vs Global Alloys Pvt. Ltd on 2 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order : 2.1.2015
Appeal No. ST/884/2012-CU(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 179-ST/LKO/2012 dated 23.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
CCE & ST, Lucknow Appellant
Vs.
Global Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. - for the Appellant Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate - for the Respondent Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) F. Order No. 50093/2015 Per R.K. Singh :
Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 179-CE/LKO/2012 dated 23.3.2012 which set aside the order-in-original dated 25.2.2011 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.6,39,883/- along with interest and penalties including mandatory equal penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 was confirmed. The original adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on the ground that the respondents had not paid service tax on the services rendered in the form of supervision charges for mosquito net, tents, trousers and shorts liable to service tax under business auxiliary service and deliberately suppressed the details with intent to evade service tax. The original adjudicating authority did not accept the contention of the respondents that they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 on the ground that the service was not in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education and it was in relation to articles of textiles/apparels.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order in original on the ground that in Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Textile and textile articles cannot be segregated in the context of providing service relating to textile (under service tax) because in that case the basic purpose of the exemption notification would have been defeated. The Revenue has contended that textile and textile articles are not the same and that mosquito nets, and trousers and shorts cannot be called textiles, as they are articles of textile/ apparels .
3. We have considered the contentions of both sides. The respondents contention is that textile and textile articles are to be read together and therefore for supervision of tents, mosquito net, trousers and shorts they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 14/2004-ST.
Notification No. 14/2004-ST exempts taxable services provided to a client by a commercial concern in relation to business auxiliary service so far it relates to :
e) Procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client.
f) Production of processing of food for, or on behalf of, the client.
g) Provision of service on behalf of the client.
h) A service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified (a) to (c) above.
and provided in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education from whole of service tax liability thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The only issue to be determined in this case is whether the service rendered in relation to supervision of making of tents, mosquito net, trousers and shorts can be covered in the scope of service provided in relation to textile processing. The textile processing as commonly understood, is to cover processes like singeing, bleaching, dyeing etc. of textiles. That apart, at a more fundamental level, if textiles and textiles articles are to be treated as synonymous, then there was no need to mention them separately. Further garments, mosquito nets and tents etc. by no stretch of imagination can be called textiles. Indeed they are clearly articles of textiles and apparels. They have separate classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that textile and textile articles cannot be segregated in the context of providing service relating to textile is devoid of any basis whatsoever.
4. In the light of the foregoing, Revenues appeal is allowed.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1