9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant inasmuch as demand of service tax was upheld, however penalty imposed under Section 76 was dropped. 2. The fact is that the appellant is Maharashtra State Electricity Board. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the appellant is Collecting supervision charges from the consumer of electricity in outride contribution scheme in relation to power supply. It was contended that the services provided by the appellant falls under the category of Consulting Engineering Services. Accordingly, demand of service tax proposed in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed in the denovo adjudication as in the first round the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the adjudicating authority. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax (including non-levy thereof), under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Finance Act'), on all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person (hereinafter called 'the service provider') to any other person (hereinafter called 'the service receiver'), and that all such services were liable to service tax under the said Finance Act, which were not being levied according to the said practice during the period up to 26th day of February, 2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity, and. the period up to 21st day of June, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stage of the appeals, this objection was not raised by the Revenue. Furthermore, the stay applications were dealt in both the appeals. Thereafter, the matters travelled upto Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this Tribunal has to dispose of these appeals in time bound period. Hence, the preliminary objection raised by the Id. DR is rejected. 9. We find that Notification No. 11/10-S.T., dated 27th February, 2010 exempts services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person (service provider) to any other person (service receiver) from 27-2-2010. Further for the past period upto 26-2-2010, Ministry has issued Notification No. 45/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion referred to above. We may note that similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (24) S.T.R. 67 (T)] in relation to interpretation of similar exemption Notification No. 11/2010- S.T., dated 27-2-2010 which is pari materia to the Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Department which is accordingly dismissed. The appeals as well as stay applications filed by the assessee are allowed and the demand confirmed by the impugned order are set aside." In view of the above settled legal position, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
