OMKAR ENGINEERING CO. Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal challenges an order dated 12th August, 2013 passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai thereby directing the appellant to deposit an amount of 25% of the Service Tax with the application filed by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit. The notice was issued to the appellant calling upon them to as to why they should not be held liable for payment of Service Tax for the services rendered namely "Business Auxiliary Services". The Commissioner of Excise and Service Tax by order dated 18th October, 2012 held that the appellant is liable for payment of service tax and also levied penalty on the appellant. Being aggrieved, an appeal came to be preferred before the learned CESTAT along with application for waiver of pre-deposit. The said application was partly allowed by directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount demanded. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) Shri Jain, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has totally erred in directing deposit of 25% amount. He submits that in the facts of the present case, the learned Tribunal ought to have waived the entire amount. The learned Counsel submits that the case of the appellant is that the appellant does not carry out processing activities, but carries an activity which is a part of manufacturing activity, and therefore would not fall within the ambit of service tax. The learned Counsel further submits that the other 65 units doing almost similar job, have been held to be doing manufacturing activities by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat and as such the appellant is being given discriminatory treatment.

(3.) Shri Jetly, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Central Excise on the contrary submits that the appeal arises out of the interlocutory order. He submits that unless discretion which is vested in the learned Tribunal is found to be exercised in the perverse manner, this Court would not interfere with the same. Insofar as the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the Revenue has already challenged the said judgment before the learned Sales Tax (sic).