Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Excise & Service Tax Commissioner Jalandhar v. M/S Shree Ram Enterprises Jalandhar

Yogesh Sharma 2018.08.28 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document STA No.20 of 2016 (O&M) 328-5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH STA No.20 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.08.2018 Commissioner of Central Excise ... Appellant

Versus

M/s Shree Ram Enterprises ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

**** RAJESH BINDAL, J.

The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, arising out of Appeal No.ST/60060/2013, raising the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in treating the services provided by the Respondent to M/s BSNL as same which had been provided by M/s BSNL to its subscribers.

ii) Whether the service of promotion and marketing of services of a client i.e. business auxiliary service, as defined in Section 65(19)(ii) of the Financial Act, 1994 read with Section 65(105)(zzb) ibid provided by the Respondent to M/s BSNL was not different from the telecommunication services, as defined in Section

Yogesh Sharma 2018.08.28 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document STA No.20 of 2016 (O&M) 65(109a) read with Section 65(105)(zzzx) ibid provided by M/s BSNL to their subscribers.

iii)Whether service tax was not chargeable on both the services as defined Section 65(105)(zzzx) and 65(105)(zzb) independent of each other in terms of provisions of Section 66 ibid.

iv) Whether the Respondent was not liable to discharge their own service tax liability independent of and apart from that discharged by M/s BSNL.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount involved in the present appeal is `23,63,307/-. As the amount involved is less than the limit prescribed in the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell) dated 11.07.2018, the present appeal be dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly.

However, it is made clear that dismissal of present appeal will not be taken as upholding the order passed by the Tribunal as the legal issue raised therein is left open to be considered in an appropriate case. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE 21.08.2018 Yogesh Sharma  Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No