9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.JC Patel, Advocatewith Ms.Shanita J Patel, for appellant Shri.MP Damle, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.PVR/29/NGP/2013 dated 22/01/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration is whether appellant is liable to service tax on an amount received by them during the period October 2004 to March 2008 from their client as lease rental for Oxydeep unit of treatment of waste water erected at their client s place. 4. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the period of lease the equipment stands transferred to the lessee. Since they are not recovering any EMI the transaction do not fall within the ambit of financial services, alternatively if at all the services falls under the financial services in terms of boards circular the same will not be applicable to the cases where the lease has been entered before the 16/07/2001 and therefore their activity is not liable to tax. 9.2 The above stand of the appellant is not sustainable for the reason that equipment leasing is covered under the term operating lease which is sub head of financial leasing. In terms of Rule AS 19 issued by Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, lease has been divided into two types: Financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase the ownership is with the principal i.e. appellant who has leased the equipment which they termed as loan the later being the misnomer. The activity therefore is clearly within the ambit of equipment leasing and liable to service tax accordingly. 7. These two order-in-appeals were in appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal Nos.ST/61862/07-Mum and ST/96/07 dated 02/08/2013 respectively and were disposed in favour of appellant by final order No.A/1706-1707/13 dated 01/08/2012, we find it that issue in those appeals and this appeal is same. As a view is already taken in favour of the appellant in their own case an identical issue, we do not find any reason to deviate from such a view. 8. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
