Plastronics, Mysore vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 246/2009 dated 22/06/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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

PLASTRONICS, MYSORE 428, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax MANGALORE 7TH FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL RD., MANGALORE  575 003. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. S. Loknath, CA No.459, Aashianaa 6th Main 1st Stage, Vijayanagar, Mysore - 570 017.

For the Appellant

Dr. A. K. Nigam, AC (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 20/01/2015

Date of Decision: 20/01/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20102 / 2015 Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plastic industrial products at Mysore. The demand for service tax on GTA service received by the appellant has arisen because the appellant did not pay the tax. The learned CA submits that the appellants had produced sufficient evidence to show that the service provider had paid the tax. Nevertheless, the demand has been confirmed on the ground that appellant was required to pay service tax as a receiver of service. It has been held by the lower authorities that if the goods transport agency pays the service tax, it does not obstruct the assessee from paying service tax liability since the payment made by GTA is legally not correct and there is no exemption available to the assessee. The learned CA relied upon the decision in the case of Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (13) S.T.R. 421 (Tri.-Ahmd.). In this case, it was held that once tax is already paid on the services, it was not open to the department to confirm the same against the service receiver, in respect of the same service. Since the facts involved in this case are similar to the one considered by the Tribunal in the decision referred to above, the appeal has to be allowed and accordingly, appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant.

(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2