Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M. Ranga Reddy vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 4 August, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21280 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/915/2012 in ST/1305/2012-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/1305/2012-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 25/2012 dated 22/02/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad] M. Ranga Reddy S/o, Ramachandra Reddy, H.No.4-63/1, Po: Cherlapalem, Torrur Mandal Warangal Dist. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Hyderabad-III Opp: LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 04/08/2014 Date of Decision: 04/08/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery against the adjudged dues. There is no representation for the appellant. Heard the learned AR.
2. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on Rent-a-Cab Service. We also find that the issue is covered by the Stay Order No.1361-1384/2012 dt. 09/08/2012. The facts of the present case are similar to those of the cases covered by the cited Stay Order inasmuch as, in the present case also, the buses owned by the appellant were allowed to be used by APSRTC as stage carriage and, on the terms and conditions of the relevant agreement, the appellant cannot be said to have rendered Rent-a-Cab Service to APSRTC. There appears to be no dispute regarding the similarity of the terms of the agreement with those of the agreements considered in the cited Stay Order. If that be so, the appellants before us should be held to have made out a prima facie case against the impugned demands of service tax raised under the head Rent-a-Cab Service. However, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order on the sole ground of non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal of the assessee (filed against OIO) on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit and in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 04.08.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss