Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Salem Spices (P) Ltd vs Cce & St, Trichy on 5 February, 2018

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


ST/68/2009


(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 44/2008 dated 31.10.2008, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy).


M/s. Salem Spices (P) Ltd.	  	 		 Appellant  

      Vs. 

CCE & ST, Trichy						 Respondent 

Appearance Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Advocate Ms. Minchu Punnoose, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent.

CORAM :

Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 05.02.2018 FINAL ORDER No. 40344/2018 Per Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had rented out one car under rental service agreement to M/s. Salem Textiles Limited during the period 01.05.2003 to 31.03.2006. The department took the view that the said service would fall within the ambit of Rent a cab service under Section 65 (105) (o) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly SCN dated 28.11.2006 was issued to the appellants interalia proposing demand of service tax of Rs.49,224/- with interest thereon and imposition of penalties. The original authority confirmed the proposals and the same were also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 31.10.2008. Hence this appeal.

2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Advocate, Ms. Minchu Punnoose, submitted that the issue is already covered in their favour vide Tribunals decision in Final Order No. 42127/17 dated 18.09.2017 in the case of M/s. Om Sakthi Travels Vs. CST, Chennai, which relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of CCE Vs. Sachin Malhotra  2015 (37) STR 684 (Uttarakhand).

3. On the other hand, Ld. AR supports the impugned order.

4. On going through the facts, we find that the assertion of the Ld. Advocate is correct. Following the ratio already set down by this Bench in Om Sakthi Travels (supra), we allow the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)




 (MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR)	      (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
       MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 	                MEMBER (JUDICIAL)


BB


2