2011 (7) TMI 497 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Show cause notice - Limitation - Activity undertaken by the appellants is photography of the specified material and submission of their interpretation based on the photograph - Their service therefore cannot be treated to be covered under the Consulting Engineering Services Further,find that the appellants are registered with the Directorate of Industries as a SSI unit in Pune, having their office in Pune only - Thus the show-cause notice issued by Asst. Commissioner Central Excise, Sangli has been issued without having territorial jurisdiction in terms of S.Tax order no. 1/1/94 dated 29.06.1994 read with Rule 2(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show-cause notice and the order-in-original, therefore, do not survive - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli
- Nature of services provided by the appellant
- Registration requirements under Service Tax
- Bar of limitation

Jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli to issue a show-cause notice to the respondent. The Revenue argued that the respondent, engaged in providing Consultancy Engineering services, should have registered under Service Tax and fulfilled related obligations. However, the respondent contended that their services, involving material testing and photography, were provided in Pune, not Sangli. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the Asst. Commissioner lacked territorial jurisdiction over the respondent's activities in Sangli. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the services were performed in Pune, where the respondent was registered, thus upholding the Commissioner's decision.

Nature of services provided by the appellant:
The core issue revolved around the nature of services offered by the appellant. The Revenue claimed that the appellant's activities fell under Consulting Engineering Services, necessitating registration and compliance with Service Tax provisions. Conversely, the respondent argued that their services primarily involved material testing and photography, not Consulting Engineering. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the respondent, stating that the appellant's work constituted photography and interpretation based on photographs, not Consulting Engineering. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing that the appellant's services were photography-related, provided in Pune, and not subject to Consulting Engineering regulations.

Registration requirements under Service Tax:
The dispute also touched upon the registration requirements under Service Tax. The Revenue contended that the appellant should have registered, paid service tax, and filed returns for the period in question. However, the respondent's position was that their services were photography-based, conducted in Pune, and not subject to the same registration obligations as Consulting Engineers. The Tribunal concurred with the respondent's stance, highlighting that the appellant's registration in Pune and the location of service provision supported the conclusion that the Asst. Commissioner in Sangli lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

Bar of limitation:
Additionally, the issue of the bar of limitation was raised by the respondent. Despite the Revenue's arguments, the Tribunal did not delve into the limitation aspect as the respondent had succeeded on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order and disposing of the Cross Objection in line with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the nature of services provided and the jurisdictional aspects of the case.