Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Akash Engineering Associates vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 19 June, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/Misc/805/11(by dept),
ST/S/80/11 & ST/110/11
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.16/2010 dt. 3.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III]
For approval and signature :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, 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 ? :
Akash Engineering Associates Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise
Chennai-III
[now sought to be changed as
CST Chennai] Respondent
Appearance:
Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, JC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member
Date of Hearing :19.6.2013
Date of Decision : 19.6.2013
FINAL ORDER No.___________
Per P.K. Das
1. The application filed by department for change of cause title is allowed. Accordingly, the respondents name shall be read as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai instead of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III. MISC application is allowed.
2. As the issue involved in this appeal is in a narrow compass, after granting stay, the appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of both sides.
3. The applicant is engaged in the business of providing management, maintenance or repair service to various Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in respect of maintenance of street lights. They have obtained Registration certificate from the Service tax department. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax on the ground that there was no documentary evidence in respect of cost of materials used in the maintenance of street lights.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Ld. advocate on behalf of the appellant drew the attention of the Bench to the para-20 of the adjudication order. He submits that at the time of hearing, they had not produced sales tax assessment order which was obtained only after the adjudication order was passed. He took us through the sales tax assessment order dt. 6.10.2010.
6. Ld. AR submits that adjudicating authority also demanded tax on the ground that it is a composite service and there is no sales component shown in the invoice and therefore they are not eligible for benefit of Notification No.12/03.
7. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner observed that statement enclosed with appellants letter dt. 12.10.2010 does not contain any information on material cost. It is also observed that this submission had been submitted to the sales tax authority but no proof was placed by them. We find that after the adjudication order, they have received sales tax assessment order and, therefore, it is proper that, in the interest of justice, they should be given an opportunity to place the assessment order before the adjudicating authority. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after considering the sales tax assessment order and any other documents for de novo adjudication. Needless to say that the appellant shall grant proper opportunity of hearing before decision. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(MATHEW JOHN) (P.K. DAS) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs
2