2008 (11) TMI 147 - AT - Service Tax

Alleged that the respondent was carrying out the dry cleaning services a taxable service and also providing wet cleaning non taxable service revenue claim that the respondent did not mention the words wet cleaning in duplicate copy of the bills whereas words wet cleaning written on original copy - as the appellants were clearly putting stamp of wet cleaning on customer s copy of invoices therefore charge for wet cleaning cannot be added while assessing the value of dry cleaning service - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of providing both taxable dry cleaning services and non-taxable wet cleaning services.
2. Confirmation of tax demand and penalties by the adjudicating authority.
3. Appeal filed by Revenue against the order-in-appeal.
4. Mention of "wet cleaning" in the bills as a crucial contention.
5. Comparison with a similar case of M/s. New Nagpur Drycleaners.
6. Rejection of the appeal by the Revenue based on similar facts.

Issue 1: Allegation of providing both taxable dry cleaning services and non-taxable wet cleaning services:
The respondent was accused of offering both taxable dry cleaning services and non-taxable wet cleaning services. The adjudicating authority upheld the tax demand of Rs. 36,901 and imposed penalties, leading to the filing of an appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Confirmation of tax demand and penalties by the adjudicating authority:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand and penalties imposed on the respondent for allegedly providing both taxable and non-taxable cleaning services.

Issue 3: Appeal filed by Revenue against the order-in-appeal:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal No.113/ST/BPL/06 dated 14.3.07, challenging the decision that set aside the adjudication order.

Issue 4: Mention of "wet cleaning" in the bills as a crucial contention:
A significant contention revolved around whether the respondent mentioned "wet cleaning" in the duplicate copies of the bills. The original copies of the bills presented by the respondent did include the term 'wet cleaning,' which was crucial in the case.

Issue 5: Comparison with a similar case of M/s. New Nagpur Drycleaners:
The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving M/s. New Nagpur Drycleaners where the issue of mentioning "wet cleaning" on customer invoices was pivotal. The Tribunal in that case rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of the stamp of wet cleaning on customer invoices.

Issue 6: Rejection of the appeal by the Revenue based on similar facts:
Given the similarity of facts between the present case and the case of M/s. Nagpur Drycleaners, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the precedent set by the similar case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the disposal of the cross objection.

---