Shri M.V. Desai vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.ST/272/2009; ST/Others/10072/2014 [Arising out of OIO No.02/ST/2009, dt.31.03.2009, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat]

Shri M.V. Desai Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II Respondent

AND

Appeal No.ST/304/2009

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II Appellant

Vs

Shri M.V. Desai Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate For Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.04.2015

Order No. A/10306-10307 / 2015, dt.08.04.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing Cabs to ONGC as per the agreement. A Show Cause Notice dt.18.03.2005 was issued, proposing demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty for the period from 2000-2001 to September 2004. The Assessee paid the tax for the period April 2000 to March 2002 of Rs.24,50,089.00 under protest. The Assessee had not disputed the payment of tax for the period April 2002 to September 2004. Hence, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs.24,97,454.00 alongwith interest and also imposed penalties under various Sections. The assessee filed this appeal against the confirmation of demand of tax alongwith interest and penalty. Revenue also filed appeal against the impugned order for re-quantification of demand and imposition of penalty.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Gayatri Tourist Bus Service Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I  2013 (29) STR 499 (Tri-Ahmd) on the identical issue in respect of demand of service tax under Rent-a-Cab in connection with the agreement with ONGC, set aside the demand and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The learned Advocate on behalf of the assessee submits that the said decision came after passing of the instant Adjudication order. On perusal of the Adjudication order, we find that the Adjudicating authority had not given any finding on the demand of service tax for the period April 2000 to March 2002. It is noticed that the Appellant contested the demand on limitation as well as on merit. The Appellant also filed an application for additional grounds with various documents in support of their contention that the demand is barred by limitation and also not sustainable on merit. In our considered view, the matter should be re-examined by the Adjudicating authority in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Gayatri Tourist Bus Service (supra)

3. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh in the light of the decision of the Tribunal. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand. The Miscellaneous application is also disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 3