M/S. S.Z. Dhanwate Engg. Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No. ST/577/2010-Mum.
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where services of manpower recruitment and supply are rendered to a body covered by a notification that retrospectively exempts such services, the tax demand on those services cannot stand, and the portion of the order confirming it is set aside in light of the retrospective exemption and the Tribunal's earlier decision on similar facts. Where the findings in an order relate only to one category of taxable service and do not quantify tax liability on a separate category (cleaning agency services), that part of the order cannot be sustained on the record as it stands; the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to determine the service tax liability and the question of penalty afresh, after following the principles of natural justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/232 & 233/NSK/2010 dt. 10.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Nashik.)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. S.Z. Dhanwate Engg. Works :
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Nilesh Rathi, Advocate for Appellant
Shri B.Kumar Iyer, Superintendent (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 15/04/2015 Date of decision : 15/04/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/232/ & 233/NSK/2010 dt. 10.08.2010.
2. Heard both sides.
3. On consideration of submissions made by both sides and perusal of records. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of Services rendered by the appellant. Appellant is rendering services of Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency and clearing agency to various service recipient . It is the case of the appellant that services of Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency are rendered by them to MSEDL and is exempted retrospectively by notification No. 45/2010 dated 20/07/2010 the same was considered by Tribunal in the case of Sri Ganesh Enterprises 2014-TIOL-187-CESTAT-BANG, and relief was granted on similar facts. It is also the case of the appellant that Tax Liability on cleaning services needs to be requantified as there is no separate quantification of Tax Liability.
4. We find that contentions raised by learned Advocate have strong force. The services rendered by appellant to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company is exempted retrospectively by notification No. 45/2010 dt. 20/07/2010. It is undisputed that services of Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency are rendered to MSEDL, by the appellant. In view of retrospective amendment as also relying on ratio of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sri Ganesh Enterprises (supra) we set aside that portion of the impugned order and allow the appeal.
5. As regards the services of Cleaning Agency we find that issue needs reconsideration as the entire findings are only in respect of Manpower Recruitment & Supply Service. Holding that appeal to this portion of the impugned order needs re-consideration by the adjudicating authority, who will reconsider the issue and quantify the Service Tax Liability on this point, and as also the question of penalty. Adjudicating authority should follow principles of natural justice while coming to a conclusion.
6. Appeal disposed of as indicated above.
(Pronounced in court)
(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
Sm
??
??
??
??
3
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