9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the customer site. Since on the entire value of excisable goods, the appellant had discharged the Central Excise duty liability in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and had not claimed any deduction, exclusion, abatement towards installation charges, they cannot be taxed under the provisions of Section 65 (39) ibid, considering the appellant as a service provider. It is an admitted fact on record that on the entire value including installation of the machine, the Central Excise duty had been paid by the appellant and retained by the Government under such heads of account, the appellant cannot be burdened with the service tax liability, upon consideration of the fact that they had provided the taxable service of install ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 3-5-2022 - HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri N. Anand, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. D.S. Sangeetha, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent. ORDER PER : S.K. MOHANTY The appellant herein M/s. Essae-Teraoka Ltd is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of weighing scales/machines of various capacities, classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The final product manufactured by the appellant is liable for payment of Central Excise duty and the appellant got itself registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities as a manufacturer and also discharged the Central Excise duty liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... installation or commissioning. The said SCN issued by the department has invoked the extended period of limitation on the allegation that the appellant had suppressed the fact regarding provision of the taxable service. Further, the department has also issued the second periodical SCN dated 25.04.2011 for the subsequent period, alleging suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Both the SCNs issued by the department were adjudicated by the department, wherein the following demands were confirmed on the appellant: Appeal No. OIO dated Period involved Service Tax demanded Penalty ST/1172/2010 11/03/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f taxable service for the purpose of levy of service tax thereon. To strengthen the case of the appellant that the adjudged demands cannot be confirmed, Ld. Advocate has relied upon the following judgements delivered by the judicial forum: i. Wagad Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2022(59) GSTL 95 (Tri. Ahmd.)] ii. Alidhara Texspin Engineers Vs. CCE [2010(20) STR 315 (Tri. Ahmd)] iii. Allengers Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009(14) STR 235 (Tri. Del.)] iv. CCE Vs. Sharma and Associates Firetech Pvt. Ltd. [2017(51) STR 289 (Tri. Del.)] v. Blue Star Ltd. Vs. CCE [2007(5) STR 353 (Tri. Bang.)] vi. CCE Vs. AlidharaTextool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [2009(14) STR 305 (Tri. Ahmd.)] vii. NeoStructo Construction Ltd. Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged by the appellant. Thus, there was no consideration the provision of any service and hence, no service tax liability can be fastened on the appellant. 6. In the case of Alidhara Texspin Engineers (supra), the Tribunal has held that when the assessee was primarily and mainly engaged in the manufacture of textile machinery and the contract was entered by them with the customers for a lumpsum amount and the price was inclusive of installation and commissioning charges and when the assesse had paid central excise duty on the complete value and not claimed any deduction on account of installation/commissioning charges, the question of demanding service tax on ad hoc value of installation/commissioning charges was untenable in law. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
