Pilkhani Distillery & Chemical Works Versus Commr. of CGST, Meerut
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 811 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
ST\/70029 & 70030\/2018-ST[SM] – A\/71382-71383\/2018-SM[BR]
Service Tax
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
\nShri Aalok Arora, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
\nShri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC(A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
\nAfter hearing both sides I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of alcoholic liquor and was doing the job work for M\/s. United Spirit Ltd., Bangalore. The bottling of alcoholic liquor was conceived to be as a service provided by the appellant falling under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n are Fund as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, instead of giving it to the appellant as the same would be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n um of collection of Service Tax from the ultimate buyer does not arise. For the above proposition ld. Advocate relies upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Tamralipta Co-Op. Spinning Mill Ltd. v. Commr. Of C.Ex., Calcutta-II [2003 (162) E.L.T. 840 (Tri.-Kolkata)] = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pilkhani Distillery & Chemical Works Versus Commr. of CGST, MeerutService Tax2018 (8) TMI 811 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 10-7-2018ST\/70029 & 70030\/2018-ST[SM] – A\/71382-71383\/2018-SM[BR]Service TaxMRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC(A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both … Continue reading “Pilkhani Distillery & Chemical Works Versus Commr. of CGST, Meerut”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. On going through the said order of Commissioner(Appeals) I note that he has made a reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Addition & Co. Ltd. [2016 (339) E.L.T. 177(S.C.)] laying down that the word 'buyer' in clause (e) to proviso to section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be restricted to the first buyer from the manufacturer. As such though he has appreciated the appellant's submission that the Service Tax was charged separately from M\/s. United Spirits and by way of separate notes have been cre<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nLd. Advocate also draws my attention to a certificate given by their principal M\/s. United Spirit to the effect that the amount of Service Tax has not been collected by them from the customers and the goods have been sold at the price fixed by the authorities. However, he fairly agrees that the said certificate dated 09.12.2017 was not before the authorities below and as such does not stand considered by them. Inasmuch as the said certificate is an important document, I feel t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n