M/S. Coaters vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 191 & 192/2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-II (Appeal).]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Coaters No.259, Division 31, 5th Cross, Avalahalli, New Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road BANGALORE - 560026 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-service Tax 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE  560 071. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. PRADYUMNA G.H. ADVOCATE C/O. KENTREE CONSULTANTS NO.371, 8TH MAIN, SADASHIV NAGAR, BANGALORE -80 For the Appellant

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 29/04/2015

Date of Decision: 29/04/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21096-21097 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Both the appeals have been rejected by the Commissioner (A) because the appellants failed to make the pre-deposit of the entire amount of service tax and 50% of the penalty as per the stay orders.

2. Learned counsel submits that appellant is engaged in vapocuring which is nothing but powder coating of the components/parts. He submits that after this activity was undertaken by them, the receiver of the service uses the parts for manufacture of various goods and the same are cleared on payment of duty and therefore the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.8/2005-ST which provides exemption to the services rendered in respect of such items if the service receiver pays Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured. He submits that in similar cases in the past, the Tribunal had required the appellant to deposit 35% where the demand was for extended period and 25% where the demand was within the normal period.

3. Having regard to the submissions made and also taking note of the fact that the total demand of service tax in this case is Rs.24 lakhs, we consider that if appellant deposits an amount of Rs.5 lakhs that would be sufficient for hearing the appeal by the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (A) to hear the appeals on merits if the appellant deposits Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) within eight weeks from today and report compliance to him. The stay application as well as the appeal gets disposed of in above terms.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

RV 3