9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL ORDER No.40427/2014 - Dated:- 10-6-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt.(AR) For the Respondent : Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli whereby the proceedings in respect of demand of service tax and interest and penalty were dropped. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents received Hi-Speed Oil from the refineries on payment of duty and added some fuel additives on HSD oil and marketed the same in the name and style of Extra-Mile Super Diesel . A show cause notice was issued proposing demand of service tax al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that the appeal itself requites to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal, which is against demand of service tax under the head Business Auxiliary Service's (BAS, for short) for the period August 2003 to September 2006. Penalties imposed on the appellants are also cinder challenge. 2. The impugned demand is on an amount collected by the appellants from their own refinery towards the cost of additives used in what is called extra-mile diesel . It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellants that they did not render any service to anybody while undertaking the above activity. They were only rendering a service to themselves and, therefore, the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is on duty paid material purchased by the appellants from refinery and added to duty paid HSD and then sold as extra mile diesel 7. In the present case, the Ld. A.R strongly submitted that the buyers are the service receiver. We are unable to accept the contention of Ld. AR. We find that respondent received the HSD oil from the refineries and added some fuel additives for marketing the same. In our considered view, the addition of additives in their own units and selling to their customer, cannot be treated as a service provider. Therefore following the decision of Tribunal in the applicant's own case by final order dt. 18.11.2008, we do not find merit in the appeal of the Revenue. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
