LAXMI ELECTRICALS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Atul Gupta, Co. Secretary submits that order dt. 22.12.06 passed by Jt. Commissioner of Central Excise dropping the proceedings holding that the appellant was engaged for providing the service to various Departments of Rajasthan State on various occasions was proper. This is patent from para 33 of the order -in -original. When this order was passed, that was not acceptable to Ld. Commissioner who initiated the proceedings against the appellant and service tax demand of Rs. 13,92,115/ - was made with consequential outcome of demand. He submits that the appellant is engaged as electrical contractor but not organizer of pandal and shamiyana.

(2.) LD . Dr. supports the order of the authority below and relying on the judgment of Advance Rulings in the case of Kartar Singh Kochar submits that the activity of the appellant shall be covered under the law of service tax. He relies on para 7 of the judgment. Therefore, he prays that pre -deposit maybe insisted. Heard both sides and perused the records. Ld. Commissioner in para 10 itself has found that the appellant is an electrical contractor. Such a finding also supports the finding of the adjudicating authority in para 33. We are not finding any positive evidence that was brought to record by the Commissioner to hold that the activity carried out by the appellant was providing service of pandal and shamiyana contract services. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case at present. Prima -facie we observe that the finding of both the authorities requires thoroughly examination. In view of such peculiar circumstances, we direct waiver of pre -deposit during pendency of the appeal.