9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Apex Court in the case of SAFETY RETREADING COMPANY (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM, M/S TYRESOLES INDIA PRIVATE LMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA AND M/S LAXMI TYRES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [ 2017 (1) TMI 1110 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that ' the appellant is liable for service tax on service portion only which is below threshold limit of SSI exemption.' Service tax on the service portion, which is below the threshold limit of SSI exemption - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner seriously erred in observing that the appellant is liable to service tax on the service portion, which is below the threshold limit of SSI exemption. Once the finding is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to their clients during the period from April, 2007 to March, 2012. On the basis of the information circulated by DGFT that in the case of M/s.Speed Ways Tyre Service Vs. CCE - 2009 (14) STR 330 (Tribunal-Delhi) , the Tribunal has held that tyres retreading activities attract service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance and Repair Service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay service tax. Show cause notice dated 16.10.2012 was, accordingly issued to the appellant raising demand of service tax to Rs.6,26,398/- with interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority vide order-in-original dated 21.05.2013 dropped the demand holding that the demand pertains to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-original, whereby the demand was dropped and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue should have been dismissed whereas the same has been allowed. In support thereof, the learned counsel referred to paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that in para-6 also, there is some confusion as the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Department, which appears to be a typographical error and, therefore, had made an application for rectification of mistake vide their letter dated 20.04.2018. However, no order has been passed thereon. 5. Perusing the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has while noting the decision of the Adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntical to the case decided by the Apex Court, therefore, Service Tax is chargeable after deducting the value of material. 6. In sofar as the concluding lines in para 5.2 above, the learned Commissioner seriously erred in observing that the appellant is liable to service tax on the service portion, which is below the threshold limit of SSI exemption. Once the finding is that the value of the service portion is below the threshold limit, they are entitled to exemption from service tax. The appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of the prescribed limit in terms of Notification no.06/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005, whereby the taxable services not exceeding Rs.Four Lakhs were exempted in any financial year. The threshold exemption limit was enhance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
