Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. National Dairy Development Board vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 28 October, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/13830/2014 (Arising out of OIO-VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-17-13-14 dated 12.09.2014, passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara) M/s. National Dairy Development Board : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri H. Bindumadhavan, Advocate and Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Ms. Bharti Chauhan, Jt. CDR & Shri J. Nagori, AR.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 28.10.2015 ORDER No. A/11577/2015 Dated 28.10.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that it is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal by Final Order No. A/343/2014 dated 04.03.2014, remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication. He fairly submits that the present appeal is filed by the appellant, to the extent that the adjudicating authority had not considered their submissions on the classification of the services. They submitted before the adjudicating authority that the service rendered by them would be covered under the category of Consulting Engineer Service, as defined under Section 65 (105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority observed that the Tribunal by order dated 04.03.2014 directed to decide the matter only on the determination of value of service tax. We find that the Tribunal remanded the matter without going into merits of the case and all the issues were kept open. For the proper appreciation of the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2014, the relevant portion is reproduced:-
4. On perusal of the records and more specifically the Chartered Accountant certificate, we find that the specimen purchase orders and the invoices annexed to the appeal memoranda show some kind of purchases directly by the appellant to be delivered to their service recipient. This being the case, we are of the view that adjudicating authority should give an opportunity to consider the evidences in its proper perspective. In view of the foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. The appellant is at liberty to produce evidences in their support, if advised to do so.
3. It is apparent that the Tribunal remanded the matter to decide all the issues. So, the findings of the adjudicating authority on the classification of the services cannot be sustained. In view of that, we direct the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh of the services are under the category of Consulting Engineer Service or Works Contract Service. As the issue involved in this case has wide amplitude, we direct the adjudicating authority to decide as expeditiously as possible.
4. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
2