TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority has also directed payment of interest on the above mentioned demands and has imposed penalties equivalent to the above confirmed demand amounts, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants are engaged in rendering 'Storage & Warehousing' and 'Maintenance & repair' services. In the course of such business, the appellants have undertaken replacement of damaged parts of containers used in international transport, while under Customs Bond. The Appellant raises invoices on the foreign shipping lines/owners for such replacement repairs undertaken by them. The value of products like CR sheets, hinges, poles etc., which are sold, are also shown separately in the same invoice as material cost. Labour and other overhead costs are also shown separately in the invoice. However, the department was of the view that the value shown in the invoices towards material cost are to be included for the payment of Service Tax. Though the appellant vide its letter dated 03-12-2013 furnished the details of value of materials used during the course of rendering the aforementioned services, the demand was raised without e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xported, are also thus exported and VAT is not leviable on these components which stand exported, under local Sales Tax law. It is also submitted that the adjudicating authority has erred in holding that the value shown in the invoices are to be included in the taxable value under Rule 5 of the Service Tax determination of value Rules, 2006 without considering the exemption under Notification 12/2003 ST as well as the decision in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd. reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del). The Ld. Consultant also placed reliance on the decision in Safety Retreading Company (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE, Salem reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 225 (Trib.-Chennai) and Laxmi Tyres vs. Commissioner of CE, Pune reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 364 (Tri. -Mumbai) and various other decisions in support of the submissions made. The learned consultant submits that in respect of their clients M/s. Triton and CAI, the appellants had raised consolidated bills from the Mumbai office, for the storage and repairs work carried out at Cochin, Chennai yards and Mumbai, on which bills the appellants had paid Service Tax. Despite the appellant producing Chartered Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....$ The service tax payable on the services (labour amount) is also indicated. 4. The Ld. AR contested that the evidence of purchase of such materials along with the supply to the service recipient with full details are lacking. We note that the invoices produced sufficiently indicate the complete details of service and materials undertaken. In fact, the entry of materials used is also can be seen from the illustrated invoices submitted. In this connection, we also note the clarification issued by the Board dated 22.09.2013 referring to the very same notification and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jain Brothers reported as 2012 (28) STR 162 (S.C.), to state that the cost of goods supplied during repair cannot be added to the value of the taxable service in view of the said exemption. The Ld. Advocate brought to our notice that in the appellant's own case in two other units in Tuticorin and Cochin, Revenue dropped the demands on the very same issue which reached the finality. 5. In view of the above analysis, we find no merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed." 6. Subsequently also, the appellants had preferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t's reconciliation statement as well as the certificate of the Chartered Accountant that the appellant has relied upon and adduced as evidence for discharge of its tax liabilities with respect to the bills issued from Mumbai office apart from stating that the appellant has not produced evidence to substantiate their claim. The Adjudicating Authority has not recorded any categorical finding as to what exactly are the documents which he desired to see for his satisfaction. Such summary rejection is arbitrary and incorrect. In this regard it is apposite to notice the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras in P.P. Products Ltd v CC, Chennai, 2019 (367) ELT 707 (Mad), wherein it was held that if the adjudicating authority had to disbelieve such certification, then there should have been material to do so. Similar views have been taken in Hero MotoCorp Ltd v CC, 2014 (302) ELT 501 (Del), and by this Tribunal in CCE, Kolkata -V v. M/s. Gorsia Handicrafts and Design Pvt Ltd, 2020-TIOL-467-CESTAT-KOL. We find this non acceptance of CA certificate and reconciliation statement incorrect, when the demand was only premised on difference noticed during audit upon comparison of their....