Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 26 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. ST/626 & 629/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. US/404/RGD/2012 dated 18.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== M/s Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent Appearance:
Shri S.P. Agnihotri, Consultant for Appellant Shri S.R. Nair, E.O. (AR) for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 26.10.2016 Date of Decision: 26.10.2016 ORDER NO.
Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. US/404/RGD/2012 dated 18.6.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. From perusal of the records, it is noticed that for the period April, 2009 to January, 2010 and December, 2010 to April, 2011, the Revenue authorities have confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalties on the appellant holding that they had received the services of Technical Inspection and Certification Services. During the period in question, the appellant had sent sample for inspection/analysis to United States Food and Drugs Administration (USFDA) for certifying the quality of the products in order to export the same to USA. The said samples were envisaged by USFDA and bills were raised from the appellant, which were duly paid. It is the case of the Revenue that the said payments made by the appellant to the USFDA are taxable under Technical Testing and Certification Services under reverse charge mechanism.
4. Identical issue in respect of the appellant for the earlier period 18.4.2006 to 31.3.2008 was before the Tribunal in Appeal No. ST/180 to 182/12 and was disposed of by a common Order No. A/86140 to 86142/16/STB dated 11.2.2016. By the said final order dated 11.2.2016, the Bench held that such payments are not covered under the reverse charge mechanism as these are fees which are payable to USFDA.
5. As in the case of the appellant itself by final order dated 11.2.2016 this Bench has allowed the appeal and set aside the demands raised, respectfully following the same, we hold that the impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
(Operative potion of order pronounced in Court)
(Raju) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
3
Appeal No. ST/626 & 629/12