Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalM/S Lardums Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Meerut on 20 January, 2011IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.
Principal Bench, New Delhi

COURT NO. IV

Date of Hearing :  20.1.2011

Service Tax Appeal No. 17 of 2008

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 52-CE/MRT-I/2007 dated 15.3.2007 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise,  Meerut-I]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) 
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) 

1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see	:
	the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2.	Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of 		:
	the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for 
	publication in any authoritative report or not?

3.	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair		:
	copy of the order?

4.	Whether order is to be circulated to the 			:
	Department Authorities?

M/s Lardums Electricals Pvt. Ltd.                                              Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Meerut                                                                        RespondentAppearance :Appeared for Appellant     :   Shri D.R. Pathak, M.D.
Appeared for Respondent  :  Shri Fateh Singh, DR

Coram :  Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
              Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)


Order Nodated

Per Archana Wadhwa:Vide the impugned orders, Service Tax of Rs.1,43,912/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with imposition of penalty of identical amount underSection 78of the Finance Act, 1994.  The said demands stand confirmed on the ground that the appellant has provided repair and maintenance services to their clients by repairing the transformers.2.	The appellant had taken number of pleas including that the transformers were not immovable property; they are attached to earth; that they are in the nature of plant and machinery; that the repair and maintenance is earlier done at the site of installation etc. that the demand was also barred by limitation.  However, the above pleas raised by the appellant were not found by the lower authority and impugned orders confirming demand and imposing penalty were passed.3.	The appellant, appearing in person before us submits that they are also paying Central Excise duty on repaired transformers by treating the same as a manufacturing activity.  In support of his above submission, he produced before us the Central Excise records including the returns filed by him.  However, on going through the impugned order, we find that no such plea was raised before the authorities and as such there is no verification of the above factual aspect, now being pleaded before us.  Inasmuch as the issue relates to the facts, we consider it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examining the appellants above plea as to whether the excise duty paid by them was in respect of repaired transformers or the new transformers.   Further, if excise duty have to be paid by treating the repaired transformers as manufactured transformers, whether the Service Tax liability can be fastened by treating the activity of maintenance and repair activity.  Accordingly, we make it clear that they are not passing any order on all other legal issues including the plea of limitation and the same are open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in remand proceedings.  Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)


(ARCHANA WADHWA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)



(M. VEERAIYAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)


RM