M/s. Habasit Lakoka Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1223 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-9-2018
Appeal No. ST/40731/2018 – Final Order No. 42380/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Gopal Kanakaraj, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Flat Transmission Belts, Conveyor Belts, Timing Belts etc. They were also engaged in trading of goods. During the verification of accounts, it was noticed that they had availed CENVAT
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,35,403/-. Aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri Gopal Kanakaraj appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the trading activity of the appellant was very little and they were buying and selling raw materials namely Furan Resins, Curing Agents, Strip Cote etc. which were imported. They were maintaining separate accounts of the traded goods and therefore the demand cannot sustain. The ld. consultant also argued that the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice for the reason that the show cause notice has been issued by the Audit Circle Wing and that the adjudication by the very same wing is a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f all ranks in the Audit Commissionerate shall be have powers to adjudicate show cause notices. Thus, we do not find that the adjudication made by the Assistant Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
5.1 The major part of the argument put forward by the ld. consultant is with regard to the import of the goods; that they have maintained separate accounts with regard to the traded goods and therefore they have not been given concessional / allowance with regard to the CVD paid on the goods that were imported. The demand is raised for the reason that trading is an exempted service and that the appellants have used common input services for manufacturing activity and trading activity. The appellant seems to have confused with regard to traded g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =