Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Cce, Nagpur on 24 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Application No. ST/S/95496/13 in Appeal No. ST/87111/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 07/ST/2013/C dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee Appellant Vs. CCE, Nagpur Respondent Appearance: Shri G.L. Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 24.06.2013 Date of Decision: 24.06.2013 ORDER NO. Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Original No. 07/ST/2013/C dated 21.02.2013.
2. The appellant M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC in short), Nagpur is collecting marketing fee under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The issue is whether APMC is liable to pay Service Tax on the marketing fee collected by them. A demand of Rs.90,32,114/- has been confirmed against the appellant towards Service Tax for market fee collected by the appellant for the period 2011-12. Another demand of an amount of Rs.9,213/- has been confirmed under the category of Renting of Immovable Property. Interest on the Service Tax demand is also confirmed apart from penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as far as the issue of liability of Service Tax on market fee collected by APMC is concerned, the issue has been decided in their favour by this Tribunal in the appellants own case vide order No. A/396/13/CSTB/C-I dated 24.1.2013 and, therefore, the demand along with consequential penal liabilities are not sustainable in law.
3.1 As regards the Renting of Immovable Property is concerned, he submits that the appellant does not contest this liability and they have discharged this liability alongwith interest and, therefore, imposition of penalty on this activity is not warranted. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of stay and allowing the appeal.
4. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue confirms that as regards the demand of Rs.90,32,114/- is concerned, the facts involved in the present appeal are identical to the case decided by the Tribunal in the order dated 24.1.2013.
5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass, we take up the appeal itself for consideration, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.
5.1 This Tribunal vide order No. A/396/13/CSTB/C-1 dated 24.01.2013 in appellants own case had held that market fee collected by the APMC under the provisions of Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 is not leviable of Service Tax and accordingly had set aside the demand.
5.2 Following the ratio of the said decision, in the present case also, we hold that the demand of Service Tax of Rs.90,32,114/- is not sustainable in law and consequently, interest and equivalent amount of penalty imposed are also not sustainable.
5.3 As regards the demand of Rs.9,213/- is concerned, since the appellant has discharged the Service Tax liability along with interest, the question of imposing penalty for late payment does not arise. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is not warranted.
6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
3