Cce Chandigarh vs M/S Satnam Fabricators

[Arising out of OIA No.38/CE/LDH/2009, dt.06.03.2009, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh

CCE Chandigarh Appellant

Vs

M/s Satnam Fabricators Respondent

Represented by:

For Assessee: Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate

For Revenue : Shri D.V. Nagvenkar, A.R.

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

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 their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:20.01.2015

Final Order No.50668/2015

Per: P.S. Pruthi

1. Revenue is appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of service tax of Rs.1,29,358.00 along with penalties.

2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent was doing fabrication work for M/s Nestle. The Adjudicating authority held that the Respondents provided Maintenance or Repairs services and Commissioning and Installation service. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Respondents never entered into any maintenance contract with M/s Nestle. In fact, they only executed small job orders of fabrication, fixing, welding, buffing, polishing, etc. Neither did they provide any service defined under Commissioning or Installation service.

3. Heard both sides. We have seen the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who stated that the Respondents undertook minor fabrication and repairs job only. There was no contract of maintenance executed with M/s Nestle. The Respondents raised different bills on account of specific works allotted to them from time to time. Further, although they may have undertaken small jobs incidental to installation, such jobs or services could be held to be taxable only w.e.f. 16.06.2006 when such services were included in the definition of Erection, Commissioning or Installation under Section 65(39A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The period in dispute being 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the activity of small jobs incidental to installation were not taxable at that time. We find no reason to dis-agreee with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), because Revenue has not brought out any cogent reasons to disagree.

4. We also note that the appeals where the revenue is less than Rs.5 lakcs are not to be filed in terms of CBEC instructions F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC, dt.17.08.2011. Further, Honble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Commissioner Bangalore Vs Arvind Clothing  2012 (281) ELT 215 (Kar.) and by Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Techno Economic Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (20) STR 707 (Bom.)

5. In view of the above, Revenues appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) (P.S. Pruthi)

Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

cbb

3