Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. B.M.C. Metal Cast Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax ... on 14 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
Stay Petition No. 80099/2013
AND
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/75038/2013
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 216/JSR/2012 dated-30/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)
For approval and signature of:
DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P. LAL, 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities ?
M/s. B.M.C. Metal Cast Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax ,JSR
RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Mrs. Sonam Agarwal Jaluka, C.A.
FOR APPELLANTS
Sri A.K. Biswas, Supdt.,(A.R.)
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 14/07/2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75394/2015
Per DR. D.M. MISRA
This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.7.28 Lakhs and penalty of Rs.8.00 Lakhs imposed under Section 78 and Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicant submits that they had received GTA services during the period 01/01/2005 to 28/2/2008 and accordingly required to discharge service tax on the said service. Demand has been confirmed against them denying the abatement of 75% from the gross taxable value of transportation charges to which they are eligible under Notification No.34/2004-ST dated-3/12/2004 and Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated-1/03/2006. She has submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has denied them the said benefit on the ground that the consignment notes issued by the Transport Agencies did not contain the declaration, as required under said Notification. It is alleged that different stamps stating the required declarations were used in the respective consignment notes, hence the same are forged one. She submits that the stamps were used by the GTA services provider and they do not have any control over the said service providers. She said that the consignment note stamps with the declaration are genuine and in support, she has placed general declarations in the form of letters issued by various transport service providers in their letter heads. It is her submission that even general declaration would suffice the requirement of making declaration on each consignment notes in view of the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of I.O.C. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Patna read with 2013 (29) S.T.R. 524 (Tri.-Kolkata), M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Bolpur reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 314 (Tri.-Kolkata) and M/s. Paliwal Home Furnishing Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Delhi reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 531 (Tri.-Del.).
3. The Ld. A.R. for Revenue submits that the documents now produced by the applicant were neither placed before the adjudicating authority nor before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the same need to be scrutinized in detail. He has no objection in remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents now filed by the applicant.
4. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for final disposal with the consent of both sides.
5. We find that the issue involved in the present case relates to eligibility of Notification No.34/2004-ST dated-3/12/2004 and Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated-1/03/2006. The benefit of the said notification was denied on the ground that the applicant could not justify their claim by filing sufficient evidences as the declaration on the respective consignment notes were not accepted by the department and its authenticity has been doubted. Now the appellant has placed before us declarations received from the respective service providers, and in view of the aforesaid judgments the same could be considered in extending the exemption Notification. However, the said declarations require scrutiny/examination by the adjudicating authority. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the adjudicating authority only for the purpose the scrutiny of the documents/evidences. Needless to mention that reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. S.P. disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Sd/- 23/07/2015 Sd/- 23/07/2015
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/75038/2013
4