Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
K. Shanmugavelu vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 July, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
Appeal No.ST/S/42560/2013 & ST/42563/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.177/2013 dt. 21.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
For approval and signature :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities ? :
K. Shanmugavelu Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri K.P.Muralidharan, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of Hearing : 15-07-2014 Date of Decision : 15-07-2014
FINAL ORDER No. 40402 / 2014
Per P.K. Das
1. After hearing the matter for some time, we find that the appeal itself may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly, after disposing the stay application, we take up the appeal for hearing.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find from the impugned show cause notice that the appellant had entered into contract with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) for civil structure to facilitate erection of electricity transmission tower (also a structure) for TNEB. We find that by Notification No.45/2010-ST dt. 20.7.2010 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944, the Central Government directed that the service tax payable on the taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service recipient, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid during the period upto 26.2.2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and the period upto 21.6.2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity. In the present case, we find that the demand of tax is for the period May 2006 to May 2007 relating to transmission of electricity.
3. In view of the above notification, demand of tax is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs
2