AUTOLITE (INDIA) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25 -11 -03, by which he confirmed the demand of Rs. 65 lacs under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, appropriating the amount of duty of Rs. 20,000/ - towards that demand, ordered deposit of interest on demand confirmed under Section 75 of the Act, imposed penalty of Rs. 500/ - under Section 75A of the Act for failure in making the application for registration and also imposed enhanced penalty of Rs. 65000/ - for failure of the appellant to collect and pay Service Tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68. The Commissioner has passed this order, in the appeal, which was filed by the assessee against the order -in -original made by the Assistant Commissioner on 4th June, 2002, holding that the appellant was covered within the meaning of the expression consulting engineering firm, and, confirming the demand of Rs. 65,000/ - under Section 70 of the Act with due interest chargeable under Section 75, and, imposing penalty of Rs. 500/ - under Section 75A, and Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 76 of the said Act.

(2.) IN the show cause notice, which was issued on 3 -1 -2002, the appellant was required to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 65,000/ - should not be recovered from them under Sections 68 and 75 and penalty of the like amount should not be imposed besides the other penalties under Sections 75A and 76. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the amount was recovered by the assessee on account of "consultant engineering services". It was stated in the very first paragraph in the show cause notice, that, the appellant had provided consultant engineering services without getting itself registered under Section 69. The show cause notice was admittedly issued only on the allegation that the assessee had received consideration for rendering consultant engineering services. It is in the context of this show cause notice, that the order -in -original came to be passed after taking into consideration the defence of the assessee, that, it was neither a member of Institute of Engineers of India nor Institute of Chartered Engineers of India, or, Consulting Engineers Association of India.

(3.) IT is evident that the matter was argued on the basis of show cause notice, which was issued in the context of rendering service as consultant engineer as defined under Section 65 of the Act. While holding that the assessee was covered under the expression of 'consultant engineering firm', and, it is not cooperating in the investigation by providing relevant documents, the Assistant Commissioner had also observed that, even if for the sake of arguments, it was presumed that the assessee had rendered services as mentioned in the MOU dated 1 -1 -1998, those services did not escape from the ambit of service tax network and the service rendered as shown in Para 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), and 1(f) of the agreement was covered under the service 'market research agency and management consultancy service'.