Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Elmech Enterprises Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 December, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 22390 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/27510/2013 in ST/27204/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: ST/27204/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.56/2013 (H-II) dated 21/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, HYDERABAD-II( Appeal). ] M/s. Elmech Enterprises Ltd G-21, Madhuranagar, Yousufguda HYDERABADA - 500081 AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None Y.SREENIVASA REDDY M/S. QUESTCOM CONSULTANCY SERVICES, H.NO.8-2-598/A/7, 1ST FLOOR, ROAD NO.10 BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034-AP For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 23/12/2014 Date of Decision: 23/12/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel has requested for adjournment because he suddenly fell sick.
2. Heard the learned AR.
3. I find that appeal has been rejected on the ground that appellant did not make the pre-deposit of 50% of the tax demanded. The appellant acted as a subcontractor to M/s. Projects Ltd. As per the agreement, the assessee was required to construct electrical substations for Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme on turnkey basis. The period involved is 2005-06 to 2009-10 and the amount demanded is Rs.22,25,116/-.
4. The appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20.7.2010. This has been denied by the original adjudicating authority who observed in paragraph 27 as follows.
27. From the above, it is clear that the exemption is only for taxable service of transmission, provided by the transmission company. When the Notification No.45/2010-ST is read in harmony with the Notification No.11/2010-ST, it is clear and unambiguous that it waives the taxable service of transmission, provided by the transmission company, for the past period.
5. The Notification No.45/2010ST provides exemption to all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity by a person to another person during the relevant period covered by the proceedings. It is not limited only to taxable service of transmission by the transmission company as observed by the learned original adjudicating authority. Prima facie, I find that appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification and therefore the appeal could have been heard without insisting on pre-deposit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (A) with a request to hear the appeal without insisting on any pre-deposit.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 3