Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mehta Plast Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 1 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Service Tax Appeal No. 60633 of 2013-SM
Service Tax Stay Application No. 61841 of 2013-SM
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 128(VC)ST/JPR-I/2013 dated 13.9.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
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
M/s. Mehta Plast Corporation Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Jaipur , Appearance:
Shri Ankit Totoka, Advocate for the Appellants Shri M S Negi, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing /Decision: 1.5.2014 ORDER NO . FO/ 51981 /2014-SM(Br) Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The benefit of payment of service tax under the Works Contract Scheme for errection and commissioning or installation services stand denied to the appellant on the ground that they have not filed any written option to avail said works contract scheme composition scheme benefit. The period involved in the present appeal is 2009 -2010.
2. I find that identical proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the earlier period from 2006-2009, the matter stand concluded by the Commissioner vide his order dated 20.7.2011, he has dropped the same, which read as under:-
10.2 From the above, it is observed that there is no requirement to file the intimation in writing for payment of service tax under Composition Scheme. In this case, the noticees have not filed any intimation to the department in writing but the noticees have paid the service tax @ 4.12% prevalent at that time after availing the benefit of notification No. 32/2007-ST. The act of the noticee for payment of service tax @ 4.12% shows their wish to opt for composition scheme. I find that the payment of service tax @ 4.12% itself shows that they have opted composition scheme for all the contracts. Further the noticees have not paid any service tax in respect of any contract in any other services. The entire payment after calculation of service tax @ 4.12% has been made under composition scheme of Works Contract Services. In view of above, I allow the benefit of composition scheme as the noticees fulfill the condition as mentioned in the notification No. 32/2007-ST dated 22.5.2007.
3. As rightly observed by the Commissioner in his above referred order, the option to be exercised is not required to be exercised in writing and the very fact of payment of duty under the composition scheme reflects upon the option of the assessee. As such, I find no reason to deny the benefit. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2