Cce, Ludhiana vs Shri Anil Sharma

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal22 January 2015

CitationAppeal No. ST/999/2009-Cu (DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the sole ground that the tax effect involved falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board's instruction, which the court held binding on it, and the instruction's validity was taken as affirmed by the High Court's decision.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066CIRCUIT BENCH AT CHANDIGARHAppeal No. ST/999/2009-Cu (DB)

(Arising out of OIA No.184/CE/LDH/2009 dt.14.09.2009 passed by CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh)

CCE, Ludhiana Appellants

Vs.

Shri Anil Sharma Respondent

Appearance:

Appellant: Shri Yash Pal Sharma, AR

Present for the Respondent: None

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

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

Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Yes

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

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

Date of Hearing/decision: 22.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50736/2015

PER: P.S.PRUTHI

This appeal is directed against the Order-in- Appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of service tax of Rs.1,31,034/- alongwith interest and penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The facts of the case are that during the audit of M/s.Sant Valves Pvt.Ltd., Bye-Pass, Jalandhar, it was noticed that various Commission Agents were providing services of causing sale or purchase of goods belonging to the respondent. The respondents were asked to provide the details of such Commission Agents. After receipt of details, the respondents were asked to provide the details of all such commissions received but the respondent failed to provide them. Consequently, the service tax liability of the respondent was worked out on the basis of figures provided by Audit and it was opined that the service being provided by the respondent falls under the category of Business Auxiliary as defined under section 65 (19) read with section (105) (zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. Learned AR reiterates the finding adjudicating authority and request for setting aside of the Commissioner (appeals).

5. We note that Boards Instruction F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011 prescribed the monetary limit of Rs.5 below which the appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal. The same has been affirmed by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE vs. Techno Economic Services Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (20) STR 707 (Bom.).

6. In view of above, appeal is rejected.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free