Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Shakti Treads Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : ST/Stay/193/2010, ST/330/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/12/2010
Related Assessment Year :

We find that in an identical issue this bench had taken a view in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udyam (supra) that the value of the rubber, cushion, gum and solution consumed in the retreading/ reconditioning of tyres need not be included in the value for the discharge of Service Tax and benefit of Notification No.12/2003 is available.  We are of the considered view that the final order of this bench in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udyam (supra), prima facie, covers the issue in favour of the assessee, while the case law referred by the learned DR i.e., Abirami Retreading Co. (supra) and Agarwal Colour Advance Photo System (supra), we find that in that case it was only the stay order, while in another case it was referred to larger bench and there is a favourable order in favour of the appellant from this bench. We allow the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and stay the recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal.

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

ST/Stay/193/2010
ST/330/2010

M/s SHAKTI TREADS

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE

Date of Decision: 20.12.2010

Appellant Rep by: Shri M S Srinivasa, Adv.
Respondent Rep by: Shri Kishori Lal, DR

CORAM: M V Ravindran, Member (J)
P Karthikeyan, Member (T)

STAY ORDER NO.965/2010

Per: M V Ravindran (Oral):

This stay petition is filed for pre-deposit of the following amounts.

(i) Service Tax amount of Rs.17,32,457/-;

(ii) Interest under Section 75;

(iii) Penalty under Section 76 not quantified;

(iv) Penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Section 77; and

(v) Penalty of Rs.34,00,000/- under Section 78.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The demand of Service Tax has arisen on the ground that the appellant has not included the value of materials for the purpose of arriving at the Service Tax liability.

4. The learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Final Order No.282/2009 dt.24.3.2009 of this bench in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udhyam Vs. CCE & ST, Mysore as reported at 2009 (16) STR 172 (Tri.-Bang.) and also in the case of Abirami Retreading Company Vs. CCE, Salem. It is his submission that the appellant though being a franchise of MRF does the retreading of old tyres while the Commissioner (A) has recorded a finding that appellant is doing the retreading of new tyres, which cannot be factually correct.

5. The learned departmental representative would on the other hand submit that in an identical issue in the case of M/s. Ador Fontech Limited Vs. CCE, Nagpur , the coordinate bench in Bombay had directed the appellants to pre-deposit the entire amount of Service Tax. It is also his submission that the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST cannot be given as the value of materials sold would only be the consideration as in this case the materials were consumed for retreading of the tyres. He would also submit that in an identical situation in the case of Agarwal Colour Advance Photo System Vs. CCE, Bhopal – 2010 (19) STR 181 (Tri.-Del.), the matter has been referred to Larger Bench.

6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that in an identical issue this bench had taken a view in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udyam (supra) that the value of the rubber, cushion, gum and solution consumed in the retreading/ reconditioning of tyres need not be included in the value for the discharge of Service Tax and benefit of Notification No.12/2003 is available.

6.1. We are of the considered view that the final order of this bench in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udyam (supra), prima facie, covers the issue in favour of the assessee, while the case law referred by the learned DR i.e., Abirami Retreading Co. (supra) and Agarwal Colour Advance Photo System (supra), we find that in that case it was only the stay order, while in another case it was referred to larger bench and there is a favourable order in favour of the appellant from this bench. We allow the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and stay the recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal.

(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

NF

More Under Service Tax

0 Comments

  1. S.VINAYAGAMOORTHY says:

    Sir,

    im filing service tax and excise return through online. if any neccessary to submit the hard copy of filing return. The act prescribe any give to hard copy.
    please reply the same.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930