2015 (12) TMI 679 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate tribunal rules in favor of appellant, finding no evidence of availing double benefits under specific notifications.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Versus Nikhil Comforts

The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, ruling in favor of the appellant. The tribunal found no evidence to support the ... Demand of service tax - abatement of value under Notification 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - Held that:- grounds of appeal which has been taken by the Revenue before us indicates only an unsupported plea that the appellant had availed benefit of Notification 1/2006-ST and benefit of Notification 12/03-ST. There is no supporting evidence to indicate that the respondent had availed benefit of Notification 12/03-ST. We find that the respondent has followed the condition laid down by Notification 1/2006-ST inasmuch as there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that they had availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods or input services. We also find that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent had claimed or issued invoices for the actual material supplied for the services rendered by them; in this case, installation and commissioning service. In the absence of any evidence that the respondent had claimed dual benefit of Notification 1/2006-ST and Notification 12/03-ST, we find that the Revenue's appeal fails. - Decided against Revenue. Issues involved:Demand of service tax on the appellant regarding abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST and benefit of Notification 12/03-ST.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 26/STC/BR/09-10 dated 15.02.2010. The issue revolved around the demand of service tax on the appellant concerning the abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST and the benefit of Notification 12/03. The lower authorities issued a show-cause notice to the respondent, alleging that they had claimed double benefits under both notifications. However, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the demands after examining the records and submissions. The Authority found that the respondent had indicated Notification 12/03 in their ST-3 return under the category 'abatement,' but no evidence supported the claim of availing double benefits. It was noted that the confusion arose due to using the terms 'abatement' and 'exemption' interchangeably. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that no double benefit had been availed on the taxable value, and the appellant was eligible for either Notification No. 12/03 or Notification No. 1/06, subject to conditions. The Authority found no evidence to support the allegation of availing benefits under both notifications.The Revenue appealed the decision, claiming that the appellant had availed benefits under both Notification 1/2006-ST and Notification 12/03-ST. However, the appellate tribunal found no supporting evidence to indicate that the respondent had availed benefits under Notification 12/03-ST. It was observed that the respondent had complied with the conditions of Notification 1/2006-ST, as there were no allegations of availing Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods. Additionally, there was no evidence of the respondent claiming or issuing invoices for the actual material supplied for the services rendered. As there was no proof of the appellant claiming dual benefits under both notifications, the tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. The tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that it was correct, legal, and free from any defects, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue.