Jitendra Wheels (N) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/171/09

(Arising out of Order-in-Revision/07/ST/2009 dated 22/04/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Jitendra Wheels (N) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Nashik

Appearance:

Shri.Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for appellant Shri.R.K. Das, Asst. Comm. (AR) SDR, for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 03/03/2015 Date of Decision : 03/03/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is filed against order-in-revision passed by the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the amount received by the appellant by way of commission from various financial institutions for rendering services of collecting, bringing and forwarding the loaners to the banks and also verifying their forms, etc.

4. The adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings initiated against the show-cause notice while the Commissioner exercising the powers under Section 84 has issued the show-cause notices and in the impugned order reversed the views taken by the adjudicating authority.

5. the learned Counsel would submit that the Commissioner has not addressed his contention on the question of eligibility of Notification No.13/03-ST and Notification No.24/04-ST. It is his submission that the appellant had claimed exemption notifications. He would also submit that as directed by the bench he was unable to produce the agreements which were in record of the appellants but unable to produce the same.

6. Learned DR submits that the Tribunal vide order No.A/2198-2189/13/CSTB/C-I dated 30/10/2013 in the appellants own case in respect of the very same issue has held against the appellant by following the views expressed by the Bench in the case of South City Motors Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi  2012 (45) STR 483 (Tri-Del) and he submits a copy of the said order.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and we find that the appellants appeal needs to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, the Commissioner has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification No.13/03-ST as he is not a Commission agent. We notice from the impugned order that the Commissioner has not held the appellant as commission agent. Secondly, as regards the Notification No.24/04, the claim of the appellant is that they are providing services on behalf of the clients seems to be incorrect, inasmuch as the appellant is providing services to their clients i.e. financial institutions, hence the Commissioner has correctly denied claim. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the DR and find the issue is the same as examined by the bench in final order No. No.A/2198-2189/13/CSTB/C-I dated 30/10/2013. Since the issue is covered in appellants own case against him, we do not find any merit in the appeal, accordingly the appeal is rejected as devoid of merits.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 4