9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commissioning & installation; test, inspection & certification etc. Learned Counsel pointed out that they had installed imported capital goods namely, Galvanizing furnace, Zinc Kettle etc. and paid the amounts against the purchase order to the supplier namely, M/s Prothrem Engineering (Walsall) Ltd. UK. In terms of the purchase order, the supplier in UK had arranged for testing and commissioning of all the items of Galvanizing furnace/Zinc Kettle free of cost within a stipulated period of 18 days. For any delay in the performance of the said activity, the appellants were required to pay @ UK Pound 600 per day. The said activity was completed in 22 days and hence, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 1,01,820/- to the supplier M/s Prothrem En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal in the case of Alidhara Texspin Engineers (supra) is a division Bench judgment whereas the decision of Lincon Helios (supra) is a Single Member Bench judgment. 2.3 Learned Counsel argued that M/s Prothrem Engineering has not charged anything for the installation of goods for the period of 18 days and thus, there was no service element. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lincon Helios (supra). 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that similar matter has been earlier decided by the Tribunal in the case of Lincon Helios (supra) and in case of Alidhara Texspin (supra). The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the decision of Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly subjected to tax from 1-7-2003. The assessee has paid the excise duty on the value of the product notwithstanding the services rendered. It is in that context, they were contending that there cannot be levy of tax under two parliamentary legislations. However, the excise duty was levied on the aspect of manufacture and service tax is levied on the aspect of services rendered. Therefore, it will not amount to payment of tax twice. After contesting the matter before the Tribunal, the assessee has paid the service tax and interest thereon. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any willful attempt to evade the payment of tax on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the commissioning, installation and erection work was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir transactions in Books of Account and, therefore, they cannot be held guilty for suppression of facts and intent to evade payment of service tax. It has been argued that the impugned order does not deal with the argument of limitation invoked in their appeal. A perusal of the impugned order says that it indeed does not deal with the issue of limitation raised by the appellant and consequently it fails to deal with the imposition of penalties specifically. To that extent, the impugned order is not a speaking order. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh in light of observation made in this order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
