Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Visakha Ship Building Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 27 May, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order .20929 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/28080/2013 in ST/27719/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/27719/2013-DB [Arising out of OIA No.19-2013 dated 17/05/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax(Appeals) , VISAKHAPATNAM-I ] Visakha Ship Building Pvt Ltd 1-120-09, Plot No.166, Sector-12, M.v.p.colony, VISAKHAPATNAM - 563017 AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri M.S. Natarajan, Advocate V.RAVINDRANATH, ADV 306, SRI VISHNU APARTMENTS, DASPALLA HILLS, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003 For the Appellant Shir Ganesh Haavanur, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 27/05/2014 Date of Decision: 27/05/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appellant is engaged in manufacture of panels for hulls of the ships manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL). They were paying service tax till September 2008. Thereafter, they stopped paying service tax on the advice given by HSL that the process of fabrication of panels for HSL by the appellant amounts to manufacture and therefore there was no need to pay service tax. Therefore proceedings were initiated by the Revenue which has culminated in the impugned order wherein a view has been taken that the appellant is not eligible for exemption Notification No.8/2005 which provides for exemption from service tax subject to the condition that the receiver of the finished products pays excise duty.
2. Learned counsel submitted that on the very same issue in respect of a different period in respect of the very same assessee this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. Such an order was made since both the lower authorities had not examined whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture or not and if not why not and how the service rendered by the appellant can be considered as a service taxable. Since the matter for a different period had already been remanded and in this case also similar circumstances exist, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority in this case also at the stage of hearing the stay application itself instead of postponing the matter to final stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority following the precedent decision in the case of the appellant in Final Order No.20174/2014 dt. 04/02/2014. Needless to say the appellant shall be given reasonable opportunities to present their case before a final decision is taken.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja..
2