M/S.Ess Kay Builders vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.ST-70744/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal recalls its earlier dismissal of the appeal for non-removal of defects and restores the appeal once the deficit fee has been deposited, the Revenue not disputing the deposit. On the merits, the appeal is allowed on the strength of a precedent of this Tribunal, the issue (leviability of service tax on border fencing under the category of erection, commissioning or installation) having already been decided in an earlier decision of the Tribunal, which the Revenue accepted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.ST/SHILLONG NO.05/2013 dated 31.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
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 Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s.Ess Kay Builders Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri N.K.Sharma & Shri T.C.Saini, Advocates for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 28.09.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75526/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed vide Order No.FO/A/75544/2014 DATED 23.09.2014 on the ground of non-removal of defects.
3. The ld.Advocate submits that the deficit fees of Rs.5,000/- has been deposited by the appellant thereby the defect has been removed.
4. The ld.AR for the Revenue does not dispute the said deposit.
5. In the result the order dismissing the appeal is recalled and the appeal is restored to the original number. Miscellaneous Application (ROA) allowed.
6. The ld.Advocate submits that the issue involved in the present case relates to leviability of Service Tax on border fencing under the category of Erectioning, Commissioning or Installation Charges. The Ld.Advocate submits that the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal vide Order No.FO/75044-75094/2015 in the case of M/s.Mackintosh Burn Ltd. & others reported as 2015-TIOL-457-CESTAT-KOL. In support of his contention he took us through para 2.5.22 of the Order-in-Original No.5/2013 dated 31.03.2013.
7. The ld.AR for the Revenue accepts the said contention.
8. In view of the above precedent decision dated 13.02.2015 the appeal is allowed, Stay Petition disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No. ST-70744/13
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