Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Madras Printers And vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 20 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/S/184/2010 and ST/324/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 36/2010 (M-ST) dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
The Madras Printers and
Lithographers Association Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 20.06.2011 Date of Decision: 20.06.2011 Stay Order No. ______________ Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram For reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of service tax amount of Rs.2,44,719/- together with interest and penalty and proceeded to decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides.
2. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the activity performed by the appellants are liable to be taxed under the category Club or Association Service under the Finance Act, 1994 during the period 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2007. The assessees rely upon Section 96J introduced with effect from 8.4.2011 to the effect that no service tax shall be levied or collected in respect of membership fee collected by a club or association formed for representing industry or commerce, during the period on and from the 16th day of June 2005 to the 31st day of March 2008.
3. We find that the applicability of the Section is required to be considered by the adjudicating authority to whom we remit this case, after setting aside the impugned order, for fresh decision. Fresh orders are to be passed after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3