Rajlaxmi Chits Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. PI/VSL/264/2009 dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)

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?

Rajlaxmi Chits Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I Respondent

Appearance:

None for the appellant Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt. (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:

When this appeal was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. There is a request for adjournment from advocate on record.

2. On perusal of the record, we find that the issue is in a narrow compass and can be disposed of in the absence of representation from the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the application for adjournment and take up the appeal for disposal.

3. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the demand of service tax liability has arisen on the ground that the appellant who is conducting activity under the provisions of Chit Fund Act, 1982 would fall under the provisions of section 65(12) under the category of Banking and Financial Services as an entity doing the cash management.

4. We find that the issue is no more res integra as held by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of A.P. Federation of Chit Funds 2009 (13) STR 350 (A.P.) where, considering the very same entry the Hon'ble High Court has held that the chit fund are not covered under the purview of section 65 (105)(zm) for the Finance Act, 1994. This judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was taken in appeal by the revenue in the Apex court and apex court dismissed the same which is reported in 2014-TIOL-97-SC-ST. Since the issue is no more res integra, therefore, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so.

5. Impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed (Dictated in Court)

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

//SR

3