2007 (10) TMI 160 - AT - Service Tax

Revenue has not established that charges collected for design engineering & technical feasibility, relate to any excisable goods so no excise duty can be collected demand of excise duty on receipts which are due to rendering of services as cons. Engineer in another proceedings is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against excise duty demand, penalty imposition, and interest under Sections 11A, 11AC, and 11AB of the Central Excise Act; Burden of proof on the Revenue; Invocation of longer period for show cause notice; Taxability of design, engineering, and technical feasibility charges; Double taxation issue with service tax and excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 175/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore, demanding excise duty, imposing penalty, and interest under various sections of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contested the order strongly. The demand was related to charges for design, engineering, and technical feasibility. The burden of proof was highlighted to be on the Revenue to establish undervaluation of goods manufactured. The appellant argued against the invocation of a longer period for the show cause notice and cited precedents to support their case, emphasizing that the charges in question were not liable to excise duty based on previous judgments.

The Tribunal carefully considered the issue and found that the Revenue failed to prove that the charges collected were related to excisable goods, leading to the conclusion that no excise duty could be imposed in the absence of evidence. It was reiterated that the burden of proof rested with the Revenue. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the same amount and invoices were the subject of another show cause notice issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate, making the demand for excise duty unsustainable in light of the ongoing proceedings related to services as a Consulting Engineer. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty imposition, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

The decision highlighted the importance of establishing a direct link between the charges collected and excisable goods for the imposition of excise duty. It also emphasized the need for the Revenue to meet the burden of proof in such cases. The Tribunal's ruling provided relief to the appellants based on the lack of evidence and the existence of parallel proceedings concerning the same transactions.