Pratibha Constructions vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/169/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.1/ST/2010 dated 14/01/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur)

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 :Yes 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? ========================================

Pratibha Constructions Engineers & C (I) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Kolhapur

Appearance:

Shri.V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for appellant Shri.A.B.Kulgod, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of Hearing : 13/03/2015 Date of Decision : 13/03/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.1/ST/2010 dated 14/01/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the adjudicating authority has confirmed demand of service tax liability, interest thereof and imposed penalties on the appellant/assessee under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service. The adjudicating authority has held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on an amount which represents the free supply of cement and steel by the service recipient to the appellant. Both the sides agree that the issue involved is only demand of service tax liability on the value of the free supply of cement and steel to the appellant while executing the contract. We agree with the learned Counsels submission that the issue is no more res integra as the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE  2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri-LB) is directly on the point and is in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, respectfully following the said Larger Benchs decision, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated in Court)

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

pj

1 3