9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uvenkataraman, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that there is value addition at the hands of the respondent. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that on identical issue, for the earlier period, the Tribunal in their own case allowed their appeal with consequential relief, by Final Order No.1010/2008 cum Stay Order No.817/2008 dt. 18.9.2008. He also submits that there was factual error in the Final Order, which was rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the above decision of the Tribunal (dt. 4.5.2007) was appealed against. 3. The ratio of the cited decision of this Tribunal is squarely applicable to this case. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants rendered any service to anybody else, nor has any service recipient been identified in the impugned order. Obviously, the so-called service is one rendered by the appellants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew, 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 find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
