9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration - matter on remand. Penalty - Held that:- The elements of suppression, fraud etc. cannot be alleged against the appellant and hence imposition of penalties under Section 78 as well as Section 77 is unjustified - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Appeal No. ST/151/2012 - Final Order No. 42374 / 2018 - Dated:- 5-9-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri R. Varadharajan, Consultant Shri P.V. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A.Cletus, ADC ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Appellants were engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed as under : i) In the present case, the process of mechanical treatment of Oily Sludge is ancillary, that is, integral part of manufacturing Petrol and Petroleum Oils, which are excisable goods covered under Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). This is even confirmed by the client (CPCL). Once the activity is a manufacturing activity‛ of goods under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the said activity is not covered in the purview of Business Auxiliary Services‛ under charging Section 65 (105) (zzb) read with Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. ii) Notification No.08/2005 dated 1st March 2005 exempts the taxable service of production of goods on behalf of the client referred to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the a) Service Income b) Service Tax collected c) Service Tax remitted to the Government and d) Service Tax not accepted based on Notification No.08/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. Payment received from Income Service Tax collected Service Tax remitted to govt. Service Tax not accepted Annex CPCL, Chennai 4,63,10,937 56,68,606 56,68,606 Nil I IOCL, Assam 5,49,74,283 66,60,458 70,16,666 Nil II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of taxable service as only ₹ 12,30,97,874/- is also not brought out by the appellant either at adjudication stage or even before the Tribunal. 4. In response, ld. counsels submit that though they had put forth all such arguments in their reply dt. 10.05.2016 to the SCN, running into 15 pages, however the arguments and submissions therein were not taken cognizance of or analyzed by the adjudicating authority. 5.1 Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.2 Discernably, the appellants are not disputing tax liability to the extent of ₹ 1,23,29,064/-. The dispute is only in the difference between this amount and that demanded in the impugned order. The appellants have put forth various arguments to support the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
