M/s. KTV Oil Mills Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai and Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1665 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 21-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/251/2010, ST/269/2010, ST/595/2010 – Final Order Nos. 42298-42300/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
All these appeals relate to the same appellants, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of edible palm oil. Appellants were refining crude edible palm oil and selling the same under their own brand name 'ROOBINI'. They also refined crude edible palm oil belonging to others, affixed their brand name 'ROOBINI' on the packages and collected brand royalty commission of Rs. 100/- per MT from such c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
same. Hence appeal Nos.. ST/251/2010 and ST/269/2010. The appellant had paid up the amount of Rs. 1,74,782/- along with interest of Rs. 19,545/- totaling to Rs. 2,03,355/-. They preferred refund claim for the said amount, which was rejected by the original authority vide order dated 31.10.2008. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence Appeal No. ST/595/2010.
3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing ld. counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that they are not contesting the demand of Rs. 1,02,139/- under Intellectual Property Right relating to appeal No. ST/251/2010. However, the appellant is praying for relief from penalties on the ground that the dispute is one of interpretation.
3.1 In respect of Appeal No. ST/269/2010, the appellants are not pressing the demand of service tax under Intellectual Property Right for the normal period of limitation. However, it is contended that the extended period of limitation was invoked in this case; that penalties als
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed with. However, we find merit in the contention put forward by the appellant regarding penalty. As the issue was interpretational, the penalties imposed in this regard vide Order-in-Original No. 5/2008 dated 15.9.2008 is set aside. So ordered.
6.1 In respect of Appeal No. ST/269/2010, the service tax demand on Intellectual Property Right has also been conceded for the normal period. The said demand has already been confirmed and the extended period has been set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 113 & 114/2010 dated 31.3.2010, against which the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed on monetary grounds by the Tribunal. We find that it is not the case that the appellant had informed the department about these transactions in ER-I returns. This being so, the extended period, in our view, can very well be invoked and hence the entire demand of service tax of Rs. 1,74,782/- with interest thereon is not being interfered with. However, taking into consideration
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =