PRATAP SINGH JYALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., MEERUT-II
LAWS(CE)-2015-5-23
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 26,2015

Pratap Singh Jyala Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of C. Ex. And S.T., Meerut -II Respondents




JUDGEMENT

ASHOK JINDAL - (1.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Service Tax has been demanded for the period 2004 -2005, 2005 -2006 under the category of Business Auxiliary Services.
(2.)The facts of the case are that the appellant is providing Business Auxiliary Service being individual i.e. Shri Pratap Singh Jyala during the period 2004 -2005 and 2005 -2006. The show cause notice was issued on 26 -6 -2008 by invoking extended period of limitation to demand Service Tax from the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. Both the lower authorities confirmed the demand against the appellant along with interest, penalty were also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the relevant period, the Service Tax is payable under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the service provided by a commercial concern, and not by service provided by an individual. In fact, in this case the services have been provided by the appellant being individual concern. Therefore, in the light of decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bazpur Co -op Sugar Factory Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut -II - : 2012 (28) S.T.R. 145 (Tri. -Del.) and in the case of Mangal Singh v. C.C.E., Jaipur - : 2008 (11) S.T.R. 17 (Tri. -Del.), the appellant is not liable to pay the Service Tax. It is further submitted that as show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. It is in dispute whether the appellant can be treated as commercial concern or not is a matter of interpretation. Therefore, extended period is not invokable.

(3.)ON the other hand, learned AR supported the impugned order and submits that Adjudicating Authority has relied on certain case laws namely, CCE v. Employ Me - : 2006 (111) ECC 716 (T. -Bang.) : 2006 (4) S.T.R. 303 (Tri.) wherein this Tribunal has held that "in the absence of definition of commercial concern in the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, we have to adopt the popular meaning of the expression 'commercial concern' given in the Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary. He further relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute - : AIR 1995 SC 1428 to rely on the definition of commercial concern".
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.