Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Ludhiana vs Drp Malleables Pvt. Ltd on 30 January, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 30.1.2013 Central Excise Appeal No.146 of 2011 with Cross-Objection No.109 of 2011 Arising out of the order in appeal No. 254/CE/LDH/2010 dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh II. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes C.C.E., Ludhiana .. Appellant Vs. DRP Malleables Pvt. Ltd. . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh K. Mathur, A.R. for the appellant Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Final Order No.55433/2013 Misc. Order No.55857/2013 Per Mr. S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the credit of service tax in respect of business auxiliary service provided by Commission Agent was allowed. Respondent also filed cross-objection in the appeal challenging the impugned order whereby credit of Rs.3338/- was denied which is in respect of service tax paid on Chartered Accountant service and imposed penalty of Rs.2000/-.
3. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that lower authority relied upon the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax reported in 2009 (15) STR 23. The Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Larger Bench and filed before Honble High Court of Karnataka against the decision in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra).
4. I find that Honble Karanataka High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) C.CE.., Bangalore vs. ABB Ltd. As the Honble Karnataka High Court has upheld decision of the Tribunal, therefore I find no merit in the appeal filed by Revenue. The same is dismissed.
5. Further I find that cross-objection is filed by respondent against the impugned order whereby the respondent challenged the demand of Rs.3338/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.2000/-.The demand is confirmed after denying credit of service on the Chartered Accountant service. As the service tax in question is regarding accounting and auditing and is specifically covered under the scope of input service as provided under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Cedit Rules . Hence, the impugned order denying credit of Rs.3338/- is set aside. Consequently, interest and penalty are also set aside. Cross-objection is allowed.
(S.S. Kang) Vice President scd/ 1