Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Gadkari Rangayatan vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-I on 3 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV APPEAL NO. ST/475/11-Mum APPLICATION NO. ST/CO/160/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. M-I/AV/150/2011 dated 11.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I.) For approval and signature: Honbl Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, 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 Gadkari Rangayatan : Appellant Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I : Respondent Appearance Shri R. Sundaram, Advocate : For Appellant Shri A.K. Goswami, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HONBLE SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing : 03.11.2015 Date of Decision: .11.2015 ORDER NO....................................................... Per: P.S. Pruthi:
This appeal is filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. Cross objection is filed by Revenue.
2. Demand of Service Tax of Rs. 6,03,053/- for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 has been confirmed on services falling under the category of Mandap Keeper under Section 65(105)(m) of the Finance Act. Payment of interest is also ordered.
3. As pointed out by the learned advocate, in their own case for an earlier period the Tribunal vide Order No. A/383/13/CSTB/C-I dated 10.01.2013 on the same issue held that demand is payable only for the normal period of limitation and not for the extended period. We find in the present case the show-cause notice was issued on 12.03.2007 demanding Service Tax for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. Therefore part of this period is covered in the extended period of limitation.
4. Following the earlier judgment of the Tribunal we hold that the Service Tax in the present case is payable only for the normal period of limitation. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-compute the duty demand for the normal period of limitation and intimate the same to the appellants for payment. The appellant would also be liable to pay interest on the recomputed demand in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The cross objection also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court on ........11.2015) (Ramesh Nair) (P.S. Pruthi) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) Sp 3 APPEAL NO. ST/475/11-Mum APPLICATION NO. ST/CO/160/11