M/S. Larson & Toubro Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIO-VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-075-077-13-14 dated 14.02.2014 and OIO-VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-078-080-13-14 dated 21.02.2014, passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-II)

M/s. Larson & Toubro Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

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

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nagori, 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 : 20.08.2015

ORDER No. A/11222-11227/2015 Dated 20.08.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Larson & Toubro Limited have, one unit in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and two units in Special Economic Zone (SEZ), engaged in execution of trunkey contracts. In the present appeals, according to the Revenue, the appellants provided services under the category of Business Support Service and Consulting Engineer Services between L&T SEZ unit and L&T DTA unit. Accordingly, the demand of service tax was raised on both the L&T SEZ units.

3. We find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the Tribunals decision in the appellants own case, in favour of the appellants, reported in 2013 (32) STR 113 (Tri. Ahmd). (Larson & Toubro Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara). In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority observed that the order of the Tribunal has not been accepted by the department and being aggrieved filed appeal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. In this context, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court admitted the appeal and had not stayed operation of the order of the Tribunal.

3. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, we reproduce below the Order dated 24.7.2013 of the Honble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 43 of 2013 in Civil Application No. 22 of 2013 (Commissioner vs. Larson & Toubro Limited).:-

As the main appeal being Tax Appeal No. 43 of 2013 is admitted and fixed for final hearing on 11th September, 2013, Mr. Ravani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant does not press the present application.

Even otherwise, granting of interim relief, as prayed for, would tantamount to allowing the appeal at this stage without deciding the appeal finally and therefore also, the interim relief, as prayed for cannot be granted at this stage.

In view of the above, present application is dismissed as not pressed.

4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had rejected the interim relief as prayed by the Revenue. There is no order to stay of operation of the Tribunals order.

5. Hence, after following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellants own case, as stated above, the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside. Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with consequential relief.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

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

3