Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Chemithon Engineers Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 8 December, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/1346/2008 (Arising out of OIA-KRS-204-VAPI-2008 dated 31.07.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi) M/s. Chemithon Engineers Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Nirav R. Mainkar, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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? 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 08.12.2015 ORDER No. A/11800/2015 Dated 08.12.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Chemical Process Plants and spares classifiable under Chapter 84 and 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The main contention of the learned Advocate is that they have paid the duty on the manufactured goods and they have also paid the service tax on the services rendered by them to their clients. According to Revenue, the value of the service portion would be included in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty.
2. The issue involved is whether Central Excise duty is chargeable on the value of technical services rendered prior to the delivery of the goods. The appellants collected Technical Service, design and Engineering charges, know-how and engineering charge for chemical plant. We find that the service portion relates to know-how and engineering charges, technical charges, design and engineering charges etc., the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not submitted any evidence to substantiate that the said charges pertains to general foundation of buildings or plant lay out charges or other manufacturing activity. It is noticed that this issue has been decided in a recent decision by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In our considered view, the matter is required to be re-examined on facts and law of the case, in detail. Hence, the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the facts and in the light of the recent case laws. The learned Advocate submits that they have also contested the demand on limitation, which would also be considered by the adjudicating authority.
3. In view of the above discussion, we set-aside the impugned order. It is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh on the facts and case law, and to pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of hearing should be given before decision. We make it clear that the order is passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
3