Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Avl Technical Centre Pvt. Ltd vs Cst, Delhi on 1 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Service Tax Appeal No. 55379/2013-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 174/ST/PKJ/CCE/ADJ/2012, New Delhi dated 25-10-2012 passed by CCE, New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
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. Avl Technical Centre Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CST, Delhi Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri Akhil Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.k. Mishra, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 11.03.2014 Date of Decision: 01.05.2014 FO ORDER NO._51882/2014 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. i.e. whether the excess of service tax paid by the appellant in the month of December 2006, as receipt of GTA services, can be adjusted against their service tax liability for the months of January 2007 to April 2007.
2. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Tamilnadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy [2013 (29) STR 197 (Tri.-Chennai)] as also to the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE, Mysore Vs. Powercell Battery India Ltd. [2010 (19) STR 400 (Tri. Bang.)]. The Tribunal decision in the case of Powercell Battery India Ltd. has also referred to various other decisions as reproduced below:-
I find that the very same rule was interpreted by the coordinate bench in the cases cited by the learned Commissioner. Noting is brought to my knowledge that an appeal has been filed and stay has been granted against these three decisions. I specifically find that the decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Sentinel Security (P) Ltd. 2006 (2) STR 520 (Tri.-Del.) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. CCE, New Delhi 2006 (3) STR 587 (Tri.-Del.) = 2005 (182) ELT 463 (Tribunal) is on the point. There is no dispute that the respondent had paid excess service tax during the period, which they sought to adjust subsequently. In view of this, I am of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order is proper and correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
3. In view of the above, I find no merits in the revenues stand. Accordingly, impugned order denying such adjustment to the appellant is set aside and appeal is allowed with the consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court on 01.05.2014) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
2