TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent will now claim refund for the period that it voluntarily paid service tax from 16.6.2005 to 1.6.2007. Held that:- The issue is not required to be answered, as it has become academic in the facts of the case and is left open for consideration in an appropriate case in view of the specific submission on behalf of the Respondent that the Tribunal has not directed refund of service tax paid from 16.6.2005 till 1.6.2007 and neither will they seek refund for the period having already passed the liability to their customers. No merit in the appeal - Decided against the revenue. - Tax Case No. 02 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2015 - NAVIN SINHA, ACJ AND SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J For the Petitioner : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, after inclusion of Business Auxiliary Service in Clause-19 of Section 64 of the Finance Act. It was submitted that washing of the coal resulting in reducing the ash content, increasing the calorific value of coal, amounts to a Business Auxiliary Service in relation to production of goods on behalf of their clients. The Commissioner therefore rightly held that the activity carried on by the Respondent was amenable to service tax. The fact that by amendment on 16.6.2005 'processing' may have also been added to the definition of Business Auxiliary Service along with 'production' does not take away the liability of the Respondent to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005, for the period 10.9.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for washing of coal by the Respondent as a Business Auxiliary Service related to production of goods on behalf of its clients stands vitiated on the face of it. With regard to the order of the Tribunal that liability to service tax arose from 1.6.2007 only, it was submitted that the Respondent has already paid service tax dues with effect from 16.6.2005 to 1.6.2007 and it shall not seek any refund for payments made during this period as it has already passed on the liability to its customers also. 7. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 8. The issue that washing of coal to remove the ash content does not amount to 'production' stands fully considered in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) observing at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only be done but it must also appear to be done. Fairness in action by a quasi judicial authority must be apparent on the face of the order. If a relevant ground taken by the assessee is not considered by the quasi judicial authority, it not only violates the principles of natural justice by lack of fairness in the decision making process, but renders the order completely arbitrary. The only possible conclusion is that since the quasi judicial authority had no answer and found it difficult to deal with the objection raised, he preferred not to deal with it and decide the case sans the same. The aforesaid ground is sufficient to hold that the order of the Commissioner dated 24.5.2007 is not sustainable. 10. The further issue whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
