Maharashtra Indl. Development Corpn vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 23/Service tax/Commr/2013 dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)

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 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 Yes of the Order?

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

Maharashtra Indl. Development Corpn. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.R. Krishnan, CA for the appellant Shri K.S. Mishra, 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:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 23/Service tax/Commr/2013 dated 31.07.2013.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Service tax liability, interest thereon and penalty are fastened upon the appellant that they are not discharging the tax liability on an amount collected by them under the category of Maintenance and Repair services for the roads, street lights, drainage etc. Ld. Chartered Accountant brings to our notice that on the identical issue in respect of six other appeals for the earlier period were disposed of by the bench on 04.09.2014 as reported in 2014-TIOL-2022-CESTAT-MUM. He produces a copy of the said order.

4. On perusal of the said order, we find the issue involved is the same and the bench had held the amount collected by the appellant herein and also therein are not liable for service tax. On a specific query from the bench, the ld. Departmental Representative submits that according to his information, the revenue is filing an appeal against the said order but he could not categorically tells us whether the appeal has been filed or not.

5. We find the ratio of the said decision on 04.09.2014 of the bench is squarely covered in the case and we find the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Following the said view, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

(Dictated in Court)

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

//SR

3