M/S. Inox Air Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur

(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 01-02/ST/2013 dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur)

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 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 Yes of the Order?

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

M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Vinay Jain, CA for the appellant Shri B.S. Meena, Addl.Comm.(AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of hearing : 04/02/2015 Date of decision : 04/02/2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

All these three appeals are disposed of by a common order as they pertains to same appellant and raise a common issue.

2. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 01-02/ST/2013 dated 09.01.2013.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. The appellant herein is held to discharge service tax, interest thereon and penalties are imposed on the ground that appellant during the material period involved in all these appeals has not included the value of supply of Electricity supplied free by the service recipient.

5. Appellant herein is operating a plant which produces oxygen as per an agreement entered with the service recipient and discharged appropriate service tax on the amount received as service charges. It is the case of the revenue that appellant has not included the value of free electricity consumed for generation of oxygen; while discharging service tax liability.

6. Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of appellant for the earlier period, on the same issue this Bench has held in their favour. He produces a copy of the order as reported at 2014-TIOL-803-CESTAT-MUM. We directed the ld. Departmental Representative to ascertain whether revenue has preferred any appeal against the said order, as also whether the issue is same.

7. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the issue involved in these appeals and the order as cited is same and places on record a letter received from office of Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service tax (Letter no. V(2) 04/2012/R&T/594 dated 29.01.15 addressed to Addl. Commissioner (AR), CESTAT, Mumbai) wherein it is stated that CBEC has decided not to file Civil Appeal in this case against Order no. A/697/700/14/CSTB/C-I dated 29.04.2014 (as cited).

8. On perusal of the said letter, we find it so. Accordingly, following our own order dated 29.04.2014, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

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

//SR

3