Case Law Details
Harish Tex Mach Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
In terms of Notification No. 6/2005-ST, the exemption was provided upto the aggregate value of Rs. 4 lakh in the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Rs. 8 Lakh in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Accordingly, the value of taxable services of the appellant in each year was below the threshold exemption limit in terms of Notification No. 6/2005-ST. As far as value of clearances is concerned, there is no dispute. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the exemption on the ground that appellant have failed to fulfill the condition (iii) of the notification that provider of taxable service has availed Cenvat credit on capital goods received during the exempted period. It is the claim of the appellant that they have not availed Cenvat credit either on the input service or on capital goods. From the show cause notice also it is observed that no such charge of availment of Cenvat credit was made. Even at the subsequent stages of adjudication or before the Commissioner (Appeals), no evidence was brought on record by the Revenue that appellant have taken any Cenvat credit on the input, input service or capital goods. In this position, it is clear that the appellant have not availed Cenvat credit on the capital goods therefore, there is no violation of condition (iii) of the Notification No. 6/2005-ST. The appellant are clearly entitled for small scale exemption under notification No. 6/2005-ST. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against OIA No. No SRP-126-VAPI-2013-14 dated 04.06.2013 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of service tax of Rs. 52,544/- with corresponding interest and penalties under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair services.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant however, the appellant filed a letter dated 13.02.2023 requesting this Tribunal to decide this appeal on merits. On going through the grounds of appeal, we find that appellant have mainly a small scale service provider and for the period 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, in each year the threshold limit of appellant’s so called services were much below the threshold limit of value of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST therefore, the demand is not sustainable on this ground alone.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
