By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 07, 2018: APPELLANT had filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs.2,52,731/- paid as service tax on the ground that they were not required to pay the same; that during the period October 2012 to December 2013, the services rendered by them i.e. collection of garbage in the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) was exempted by Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 (Serial no. 25).

The original authority accepted the contention of the appellant and allowed the refund claim.

However, in Revenue appeal, the Commissioner(A) relied upon the findings of the Tribunal in a stay order in the case of MIDC v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I - 2014-TIOL-1809-CESTAT-MUM and reversed the decision of the lower authority.

The appellant is before the CESTAT and brings to the notice of the Bench that an appeal filed by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) on the taxability of the services rendered by them was in contest before the Tribunal & which was disposed of by the Tribunal by Final Order dated 04/09/2014 - 2014-TIOL-2022-CESTAT-MUM holding that MIDC is a statutory body constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and no service tax liability arises on them.

Furthermore, this judgment of the Tribunal holding MIDC as a statutory body (and no service tax liability arises on activities performed by them) was challenged by Revenue and by a judgment dated 23/08/2017 as reported - 2017-TIOL-2629-HC-MUM-ST, the Bombay High Court rejected the appeal of the department and held that the judgment of the Tribunal was correct; that a cost of Rs.10,000/- per appeal was imposed on the appellant i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik for the frivolous appeals.

Inasmuch as the law is now settled that that MIDC is a statutory body, the appellant submitted.

The Bench observed -

“7. On perusal of the Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012, it transpires that at serial no. 25 exemption is granted to services provided to Government, local authorities of government authority in respect of sanitation conservancy, solid waste management. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein has rendered the services to MIDC for garbage collection disposal thereof. I find that the adjudicating authority was correct in allowing the refund claim filed by the appellant."

The impugned order was set aside and Revenue was directed to refund the amount as had been ordered by the adjudicating authority.

The Appeal was allowed.

(See 2018-TIOL-1747-CESTAT-MUM)