Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Apitco Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 7 February, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE COURT - I Stay No. & Appeal No: ST/Stay/822/2010 in ST/1415/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 10/2010-ST dated 25.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad.) 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s. APITCO Limited Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad. Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri D. P. Nagendra Kumar, JCDR for the revenue.
CORAM SHRI M. V. RAVINDRAN, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P. KARTHIKEYAN, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 07.02.2011 Date of decision: 07.02.2011 STAY ORDER No._______________________2011 FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 Per Shri M. V. Ravindran (Oral) This stay petition is filed by the assessee against the waiver of pre-deposit of the following amounts.
(i) Service Tax of Rs.1,05,55,543/- under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994;
(ii) Demand of applicable interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; and
(iii) Penalty at the rate of 2% per month on the Service Tax amount from the due date to till the date of actual payment under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The above referred demand has arisen on the ground that the appellants have been providing services of Scientific or Technical Consultancy services for the period April 2008 to March 2009.
3. After hearing both sides on the stay petition, we feel that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this juncture, as the issue is covered by the decision of this bench in assessees own case for an earlier period. After allowing the stay petition by granting stay of the amounts involved, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.
4. The learned counsel submits that in respect of the very same assessee on the very same issue for an earlier period, this Bench vide its Final Order Nos.1113 to 1115/2010 dated 22.7.2010 as reported in 2010-TIOL-1564-CESTAT-BANG have held in favour of the assessee.
5. On perusal of the Final Order and the records, we find it so. There being no change in the definition of the services provided, this bench having already taken a view in appellants own case for an earlier period on the very same issue, respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (P. KARTHIKEYAN) Member (T) (M. V. RAVINDRAN) Member (J) //rv// 2