M/S. Anupam Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/134/VDR-I/2007 dated 27.06.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara)

M/s. Anupam Industries Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Dhaval K. Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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 Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 31.08.2015

ORDER No. A/11249 / 2015 Dated 31.08.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

The appellant filed this appeal against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 4,07,675/-.

2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant filed refund claim on 24.02.2006 for Rs. 4,07,675/- in respect of service tax paid under the category of Commissioning, Installation and Erection Services and claimed benefit of abatement under Notification No. 18/2003-ST dated 21.08.2003, as amended by Notification No. 12/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004. Learned Advocate submits that admittedly the appellant paid the tax under the category of Commissioning, Installation and Erection Services and therefore, they are eligible for abatement under the said notification. He submits that there is no requirement to produce any document for claiming abatement. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Alidhara Texspin Engineers vs. CCE, Vapi  2010 (20) STR 315 (Tri. Ahmd.).

3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence, such as the contract or agreement for claiming abatement.

4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not brought forward any documentary or other evidence, viz. contract, purchase order etc. to show that the gross amount charged by them to their customers for the erection, commissioning or installation service includes the value, paid by the customers. The Tribunal in the case of Alidhara Texspin Engineers (supra) has relied upon by the learned Advocate, allowed the appeal of the assessee. In the said case, the appellant produced the purchase order/ sales contracts of the buyers were inclusive of Erection, Installation and Commissioning of the textile machinery manufactured by them. In the present case, the appellant admittedly had not produced any document and therefore, the said case law would not apply to the facts of this case.

5. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL

3