2015 (3) TMI 789 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - appellant during the material period involved in all these appeals has not included the value of supply of Electricity supplied free by the service recipient - Held that - Departmental Representative submitted that the issue involved in these appeals and the order as cited is same and places on record a letter received from office of Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service tax (Letter no. V(2)04/2012/R&T/594 dated 29.01.15 addressed to Addl. Commissioner (AR), CESTAT, Mumbai) wherein it is stated that CBEC has decided not to file Civil Appeal in the case against 2014 (5) TMI 651 - CESTAT MUMBAI . - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding non-inclusion of value of free electricity in service tax liability.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved three appeals disposed of by a common order as they all pertained to the same appellant and raised a common issue. The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original No. 01-02/ST/2013 dated 09.01.2013. The appellant was held liable to discharge service tax, interest, and penalties for not including the value of supply of free electricity by the service recipient during the material period. The appellant operated a plant producing oxygen under an agreement with the service recipient and had discharged service tax on the service charges received. However, the revenue contended that the appellant did not account for the value of free electricity consumed for oxygen generation while paying the service tax.

The appellant's counsel argued that a previous order by the same Bench had ruled in their favor on a similar issue for an earlier period. The Departmental Representative confirmed that the issue in the current appeals was the same as the previous order and presented a letter from the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax stating that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) decided not to file a Civil Appeal against the earlier order. Upon reviewing the letter, the Tribunal found it to be accurate. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals based on their own previous order dated 29.04.2014, providing consequential relief if applicable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant based on the precedent set by their earlier order and the CBEC's decision not to challenge it further. The decision highlighted the importance of consistency in legal interpretation and application, ultimately resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant in the dispute regarding the inclusion of free electricity value in the service tax liability.