Mr. Santosh Sharma vs C.S.T., Delhi-Iii

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 would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Application Nos. ST/STAY/52514 & 52515/2014-CU[DB]

Appeal Nos.ST/52018 & 52019/2014-CU[DB]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.573-578/SVS/PKL/2013, dated 25.10.2013 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-III]

Ms. Usha Rani

Mr. Santosh Sharma Appellant

Vs.

C.S.T., Delhi-III Respondent

Appearance

Mr. Jatin Mahajan, Advocate - for the appellant

Mr. BB Sharma, DR - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order Nos.52691-52692/2015, dated 17.08.2015

Per Mr. R.K. Singh :

Stay Applications along with Appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated in the 25.10.2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the said Order-in-Appeal held as under:-

5. Now, coming to the present appeals, all the above appellants are distributors of M/s. Fashion Suitings Ltd., company engaged in multi-level marketing and the terms and conditions of the agreements entered into between the appellants and M/s. FSL are one and the same.

6. A careful comparison of the facts in the decided appeal with the facts in present appeals will got to show that the above decision applies to the present appeals mutatis mutandis. In view of the above, I hold that the activities of the appellants fall within the scope of Business Auxiliary Service. However, demand invoking extended period is not sustainable in view of the reasoning recorded supra. Likewise, there is no case for any penalty. However, the demand for normal period of one year from the date of SCN alongwith interest is recoverable from the appellants subject to the applicability of SSI benefit. The original authority shall quantify the demand after examining the value of taxable services eligible for SSI exemption and intimate the appellants for further compliance.

2. The appellants contended that they are not covered under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) because they were not promoting the business of M/s fashion Suitings Ltd. and their role was only confined to completion of documents which work could not be said to be covered under BAS and that there was no wilful misstatement/suppression and therefore extended period is not invokable.

3. We have considered the contentions of the appellants. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has himself dropped penalties and has further held that extended period is not invokable in these cases. As regards the issue involved in these cases, we find that the same is no longer res integra having been decided in favour of Revenue by CESTAT in case of Mr. Charanjeet Singh Khanuja & Others Vs. CCE, Indore Vide Final Order Nos.51818-51855/2015, dated 09.06.2015. Therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and dismiss the appeals.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-3-