2014 (9) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent : Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli whereby the proceedings in respect of demand of service tax and interest and penalty were dropped. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents received Hi-Speed Oil from the refineries on payme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Business Auxiliary Service". It is also submitted that there is value addition at the hands of the respondent. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that on identical issue, for the earlier period, the Tribunal in their own case allowed their appeal with consequential relief, by Final Order No.1010/2008 cum Stay Order No.817/2008 dt. 18.9.2008. He also submits that there was factu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or short) for the period August 2003 to September 2006. Penalties imposed on the appellants are also cinder challenge. 2. The impugned demand is on an amount collected by the appellants from their own refinery towards the cost of additives used in what is called "extra-mile diesel ". It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellants that they did not render any service to anybody while unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... another. We have heard ld.SDR also, who has not claimed that the above decision of the Tribunal (dt. 4.5.2007) was appealed against. 3. The ratio of the cited decision of this Tribunal is squarely applicable to this case. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants rendered any service to anybody else, nor has any service recipient been identified in the impugned order. Obviously, th....