The Commissioner Of Central … vs Umakanth And Co. on 24 October, 2007

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Bangalore
The Commissioner Of Central … vs Umakanth And Co. on 24 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 9 S T R 527
Bench: S Peeran, J T T.K.


S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

1. This is a revenue appeal arising from Order-in-Appeal No 17/04 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who decided the matter both on merits as well as on time bar in favour of the party. The revenue is aggrieved with the Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside OIO No 55/04 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Kurnool confirming demand of Rs. 2,13,392/-towards serviced tax for the period 10/98 to 9/03 besides penalty and interest. The assessee had entered into an agreement with Transmission Corporation of A.P for undertaking data processing work and maintenance of billing and accounting work on monthly/bimonthly basis of specified area. They were required to maintain consumer master/ledger, test reports BCRCS and all other records and registers and furnish the information/output returns which are to be furnished to the AP Transco. The Revenue proceeded to bring this activity under the category of practicing Chartered Accountants.

2. The Commissioner after detailed consideration held that the activity is carried out by persons who are unskilled workers on payment of wages and that therefore the activity does not come within the category alleged by the revenue. On time bar, he noticed that the assessee had furnished all the relevant information to the Superintendent Engineer (operation) Kurnool and to the department. They had been disclosing all true facts regarding remuneration received by them from AP Transco from 10/98 to 31.12.01 vide their letter dated 25.10.02 which was addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kurnool. Even the half yearly returns (in ST 3 form) had been submitted containing all details of all remunerations received from Electric Company. The ST returns also contained separate annexures along with challans and note on services rendered to AP Transco. In view of the entire information and returns and details filed with the department, the Commissioner held that there was no suppression of facts for invoking larger period to demand duty by show cause notice dated 21.5.04 and he set aside the demands both on merits and on time bar.

3. We have heard learned DR and learned consultant for the respondents. On our due consideration, we notice that the issue pertaining to the activity of the assesses not coming within the category of practising CAs was already discussed and decided in assessee’s favour by large number of judgments rendered by this bench for the reason that the activity is carried out even by non-CAs and it is done by unskilled employees who are employed on contract basis. The activity is not carried out in the course of duties to be performed by a CA. Further more the demands are also barred by time as all the details had been furnished by the assessee and as noted by the Commissioner. There was no ground for alleging suppression of facts. Even from the grounds of appeal, it is clear that the revenue has not challenged the details of information submitted by the assessee to the department as noted in the impugned order. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence it is rejected.

(Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open court on conclusion of the hearing)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *