Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Aurangabad Electricals Ltd vs Pune I on 13 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPLICATION NO: ST/Stay-1381/2011
APPEAL NO: ST/453/2011
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: P-I/RKS/67/2011 dated 11/04/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
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
Aurangabad Electricals Ltd.
Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise
Pune I
Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant Shri Sanjay Kalara, Appraiser (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of decision: 13/03/2012 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: Ashok Jindal:
The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order along with an application for stay. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received.
2. We have perused the records and find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after going through the records, we find it proper to dispose of the appeal and we have taken up the same for disposal after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the impugned demand.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant has leased out immovable property during the period June 2007 to May, 2009. During the period, the total amount of lease rent was only Rs. 2,20,560/-. The department is of the view that the appellant are liable to pay service tax under the category of renting of immovable property service. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued, demands were confirmed which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Against the said order the appellant are before us.
4. After going through the records we find that the total amount of service rendered by the appellant is Rs. 2,20,560/- which is below the taxable limit of Rs. 8/10 lakhs. The appellant are entitled for benefit of exemption limit which was not considered either by the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority. In view of these circumstances, we find that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we find that, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue whether the appellant are entitled for exemption benefit or not and, thereafter, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
5. The appeal as well as the stay application are disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) */as 2