TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The Department is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Bhopal. The appellants are engaged in providing repair, maintenance and packing services to M/s.Tafe Motors formerly known as Eicher Tractors. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to service tax liability under the category of Packaging Activities in terms of Section 65(76)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants are engaged in packing parts of tractors viz. bumpers . 3. During the course of argument, the ld. Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that they have filed an appeal against the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal and was examined on merit. The Tribunal concluded as above, while dismissing the appeal by the assessee/respondent. The Revenue contested the impugned order with reference to exclusion of value of materials supplied in the taxable value of service tax. We note that the impugned order examined this issue specifically. The respondents raised bills for an amount of cost incurred in purchase of various items supplied to M/s. Eicher. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the purchase bills and bills raised by the respondents. He recorded that the respondent shown the cost and an amount of 10% for supply of goods. He held that since these supply involve sale with profit of 10%, the said activity cannot be covered for service tax liability. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant under Section 76 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. From the above discussion and following the above reproduced judgements of the Tribunal, I find that there is reasonable cause for such short payment of service tax, therefore, I do not find any merit to impose penalty as held vide the impugned order. 5. We find no sustainable reason to interfere with the above findings. Accordingly, the appeal by Revenue is without merit and is dismissed. 6. The respondents filed a cross objection against the appeal by Revenue. In the said CO they contested the demand for extended period also. The impugned order confirmed reduced service tax liability after considering the submissions made by the Respondent. The said order was upheld by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
