Cce Ludhiana vs Shri Kirpa Ram Ji Dass

[Arising out of OIA No.19/ST/Jal/2009, dt.26.02.2009, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Jalandhar (HQ Chandigarh]

CCE Ludhiana Appellant

Vs

Shri Kirpa Ram Ji Dass Respondent

Represented by:

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

For Assessee: Shri Ravi Chopra, Adv.

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 No

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:19.01.2015

Final Order No.50976/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondent are registered as service provider under the category of Clearing & Forwarding Agents. The issue involved in this case is whether the amount collected as Godown rent under the head of Service Charges are liable to be included in the taxable value for payment of Service Tax.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s S. Jayashree Vs CCE Mangalore  2007 (6) STR 389 (Tri-Bang.). Revenue, in their grounds of appeals stated that they have not accepted the decision of the Tribunal, which is pending before the Honble Karnatka High Court. The ld.Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Honble Karnatka High Court vide judgment dt.09.06.2011, in CEA No.76/2007 in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs M/s S Jayashree dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the case of M/s S. Jayashre (supra) the Tribunal held that the Godown rent and Staff Salary cannot be added to the gross value of taxable services.

3. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The Cross Objection also gets disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

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

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

2