Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
New Angadia Services vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 2 September, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : ST/202/2009 (Arising out of OIA-119/2009/STC/LMR/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 21.04.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD) New Angadia Services : Appellant (s) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Chartered Accountant For Respondent (s): Shri S. N. Gohil, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P. M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
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?
Yes
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. M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 02.09.2016 ORDER No. A/10856 / 2016 dated 02.09.2016 Per : Mr. P. M. Saleem Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. At the outset itself, the Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I vs. Patel Vishnubhai Kantilal & Co. 2012 (28) S.T.R. 113 (Guj.). The issue involved is service tax liability on the service provider for transfer of money from one place to another place under the Courier Agency.
3. It is observed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I vs. Patel Vishnubhai Kantilal & Co. (supra). The Honble High Court has held that only instructions moved to delivery branch and there is no actual transportation of cash from recipient branch to delivery branch and hence the impugned service could not be held liable to service tax. It is observed that the facts are identical in the instant case. In view of the same, the appeal succeeds.
4. Appeal is allowed.
(Order dictated & pronounced in the open Court) (P. M. Saleem) Member (Technical) G.Y.