Shiva Shankar Minerals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

ST/20117/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BEL-EXCUS-000-COM-BHR-004-ST-13-14 dated 20/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , BELGAUM ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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?

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

Shiva Shankar Minerals Ltd 1672, Pasha Site, Near Saptagiri Lodge, Thoranagallu Village, Sandur Taluk, BELLARY DIST, - 00 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Y. SREENIVASA REDDY, Adv C-403, KESHAVDALE, ANAND NAGAR COLONY, KHAIRATABAD HYDERABAD - 500004 ANDHRAPRADESH For the Appellant Mr. S.K. SINGH, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 23/07/2015

Date of Decision: 23/07/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21683 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After dispensing with the condition of predeposit, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. The demand to the extent of Rs one crore stands confirmed against the appellant on the allegation and finding that they have provided mining services to one M/s GSP Infratex Development Ltd. The said M/s GSP Infratex Development Ltd. entered into an agreement with M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd for excavation of mines as also processing of the same. The said contract was further given by M/s GSP Infratech Ltd. to the present appellant who is a 100% EOU. Apart from contesting the matter on merits, learned advocate submits that the Revenue has also raised a demand against M/s GSP Infratech Development Ltd. in terms of the same contract. The said M/s GSP Infratech has also deposited an amount of Rs. 54 lakhs approximately and their appeal before the Tribunal also stands disposed of vide Final order No. 20219/2015 dated 29.01.2015 vide which the matter stands remanded to the original adjudicating authority.

2. It is true that the demand in respect of the same activity for the same period under one contract cannot be confirmed against the principal contractor as also against the sub-contractor. In this regard, reference can be made to Tribunals decision in the case of CCE Surat Vs Shagun Processors Pvt Ltd [2010(259)ELT 459 (Tri-Ahmd)]. We are informed that both the matters fall under the jurisdiction of the same Commissionerate. The Revenue is required to make up its mind as regards the assessee upon whom the demand would fall. Inasmuch as the earlier order stands remanded, we deem it fit to remand the present appeal also, We order accordingly. The Commissioner will take up both the matters, the present appeal as also the appeal of M/s GSP Infratech Development Ltd together for adjudication. (Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Pnr...

2