Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Clariya Steels Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20397-20398 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/27340/2013, ST/Stay/27341/2013 in ST/27028/2013-DB, ST/27029/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/27028/2013-DB, ST/27029/2013-DB [Arising out of Order in Original No. 10/2013 & 11/2013 dated 04/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , BELGAUM] Clariya Steels Pvt Ltd No.23, Dam Road, Near Industrial Estate, Hospet HOSPET KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Clariya Marketing Services Private Limited No.23, Dam Roadm Near Industrial Estate, HOSPET KARNATAKA-583201 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - BELGAUM NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA 590001 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Santosh Kabbur, C.A. CSS & ASSOCIATES 124, 4TH FLOOR, GANESH TOWER, 3RD MAIN, BETWEEN 10TH & 11TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 25/03/2014 Date of Decision: 25/03/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY In both the cases, the issue involved is same. Duty has been demanded on the GTA services from the appellants in the capacity of a service receiver.
2. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the services have been received from individual transporters and the transportation charges per consignment per trip does not exceed Rs. 750/-. He also submits that where the amount exceeds Rs. 750/-, such transportation related to exports and the appellant in any case was eligible for refund in terms of Notification No. 18/09.
3. Learned A.R. submits that the appellants have not produced any evidence to support their claims and on this basis only, demands have been confirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while calculating tax liability, officers had taken income portion as well as the expenditure portion of the Profit and Loss Account. In fact, in the income portion, the transportation charges shown are actually the reimbursement of transportation cost made by the service receivers. That being the position that could not have charged to service tax. As regards non-submission of documents, he submits a copy of the Panchnama drawn by Income Tax Authorities in 2010 and also produces a letter stating that period of retention of seized documents has been extended up to 31.12.2014.
5. The learned A.R. would submit that appellant has not cooperated with the adjudication and have not produced any evidence to support their submission and therefore they do not deserve any sympathy.
6. After considering the submissions made by both sides and on finding some force in the argument that appellant would be eligible for the exemption claimed by them and apparently there seems to be something wrong with the quantification of demand, we find that this is a case where it cannot be said that appellant has made out a prima facie case entirely in their favour. It appears that considerable portion of the demand would be sustainable. Nevertheless in the interest of justice appellant should be given another opportunity to produce the evidence before the lower authority. This cannot be done at the cost of Revenue since it is already two years since the proceedings were initiated and the period covered is more than 3-4 years old. Moreover, appellants have also not cooperated in the earlier proceedings. To ensure that they cooperate and take proceedings seriously and participate, we consider that appellant should be put to some terms. Even though, we would like to be fairly liberal, having regard to the circumstances, we consider it appropriate that M/s Clariya Steel (Pvt) Ltd (in appeal No. 27028/2013) should deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) and M/s Clariya Steel Marketing Services should deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) within eight weeks and report compliance on 25.06.2014 to the original adjudicating authority who after taking note of the compliance, proceed to adjudicate the matter afresh. Needless to say appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case. It is made clear that if appellants fail to deposit the amount, the orders passed by the lower authorities shall take effect and adjudicating authority shall be free to pass an order to that effect.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr...
2