TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice - Appeal is allowed by way of remand - ST/646-647/2009 - 218-219/2011 - Dated:- 20-1-2011 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Appellant. Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 48 49/2009 Service Tax dated 15-4-2009. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent herein were engaged in (1) providing bulk storage facility in the warehouse for tea and (2) b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kaging only will be under the exemption limit of Notification No. 6/2005, dated 1-3-2005 as amended from time to time is not based on facts as the value of packaging alone was not made available for consideration. (b) It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the packaging services provided by the assessee is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 for the period covered under the show cause notice. In this connection, it is submitted that Notification No. 6/2005 is effective from 1-3-2005 onwards whereas the period covered in the show cause notice is for the period from 2002-03 onwards. (c) It is submitted that the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that packaging of tea gets exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e warehousing services, we uphold that portion of the impugned order which is in favour of the respondent/assessee as regards the storage warehousing services and it is held that the respondent/assessee is not liable for service tax under the category of storage warehousing of tea . 6. As regards the service tax liability on the packaging services, we find that the findings recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are very sketchy. It is seen that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has mixed up the value and the taxability together and has not recorded any findings. In view of this, we are unable to go into this aspect and hence we set aside the impugned order to that extent it upholds that the respondent/assessee is not liable to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
