Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Itw Signode India Ltd on 15 July, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.ST/32/2008 [Arising out of OIO-01-02/DEM-ST/VAPI/2007, dt.06.12.2007, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Adjudication), Vapi] Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi Appellant Vs M/s ITW Signode India Ltd. Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Dr. J. Nagori, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:15.07.2015 Order No. A/11004 / 2015, dt.15.07.2015 Per: P.K. Das Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Adjudicating authority, where the proceedings initiated by two show cause notices dt.21.07.2004 and 24.05.2005 were dropped.
2. By the purported show cause notices, it has been proposed that the services rendered by the Respondents are covered under the category of taxable services namely Consulting Engineering Service and Management Consultancy Service.
3. It has been held by the Adjudicating authority that the activities rendered by the Appellant would not come under the category of Management Consultancy service and Consulting Engineer service, as proposed in the show cause notices. These activities of the Respondent are specially covered under the Packaging Service, chargeable to Service Tax w.e.f. 16.06.2005.
4. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. It is submitted that the activities rendered by the Applicant would come under the category of Cargo Handling Service.
5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that it is stated in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue that the activities would cover under the category of Cargo Handling Service, which was not proposed in the show cause notice and also before the Adjudicating authority. As such, the new plea taken by the Revenue, before the Appellate authority for the first time cannot be accepted. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs Toyo Engineering India Ltd 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC), dismissed the Revenues appeal on similar grounds. The relevant portion of the decision of Honble Supreme Court is reproduced below:-
16.?Learned counsel for the Revenue tried to raise some of the submissions which were not allowed to be raised by the Tribunal before us, as well. We agree with the Tribunal that the revenue could not be allowed to raise these submissions for the first time in the second appeal before the Tribunal. Neither adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority had denied the facility of the project import to the respondent on any of these grounds. These grounds did not find mention in the show cause notice as well. The Department cannot be travel beyond the show cause notice. Even in the grounds of appeals these points have not been taken.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
3