AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The divergent findings of the Order-in-Appeal No. 17/2005 dated 30th December, 2005 holding that the respondent comes under the category of "Scientific and Technical Consultancy" services, which order has been reversed by the CESTAT in Service Tax Appeal No. 1348/2006, dated 18-8-2006 (2006 (4) S.T.R. 289 (Tri. - Bang.)) is called in question in this appeal. The appeal was admitted to consider the following two substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, the CESTAT, SZB, Bangalore was legal and correct in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, when the Service provided by the respondent was liable for categorization under "Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services" as defined u/s 65(92) of the Act?
(ii) Whether the CESTAT was right in relying upon his own Final Order, which related to a different category of service and also which has not yet attained finality in terms of the accepted legal norms?
Though respondent is served, is unrepresented. In the circumstances, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The respondent is engaged in providing the following services:
(i) Original Research Activities:
(a) Product Chemistry,
(b) Environmental Studies,
(c) Toxicology Studies,
(d) Physic-Chemical Properties,
(e) Environmental fate Studies and all guidelines issued by organization for Economic cooperation and development and guidelines issued by Environment Protection Agency (EPA),
(ii) Sponsored Research Activities.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 26-3-2004 categorising the respondent as a service provider of Scientific and Technical consultancy. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissioner-ate, Bangalore demanded Service Tax amount of Rs. 12,91,095/- for the period from 16-7-2001 to 31-8-2003 @ 5% up to 13-5-2003 and 8% from 14-5-2003 onwards. The original authority passed an order on 31-5-2004 dropping the proceedings on the ground that the 1st respondent is not rendering service. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal came to be filed by the Department, which appeal came to be allowed against which, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Central Power Research Institute (2006 (3) S.T.R. 637 (Tri. - Bang.)) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.
On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent relying upon the judgment in Central Power Research Institute without discussing the facts of the present case and no finding has been given whether the respondent is a service provider or not in order to give benefit of the judgment in Central Power Research Institute. Therefore, we are of the opinion that when the Tribunal without application of mind and without considering the facts involved thereunder, has rendered judgment. Therefore, the same has to be set aside and requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh. Thus, the appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the CESTAT in Final Order No. 1348/2006 is hereby set aside without answering the substantial question of law and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the subject matter of the appeal is old, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of service of notice on the respondent.