JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

For the purpose of convenient reference, the contents of this judgment are divided into heads and sub-heads, mentioned with corresponding paragraphs, as under.

Challenge in Appeals

1. The present Appeals under Section 35L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944¹[Hereinafter, “Central Excise Act”] read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended) ²[Hereinafter, “Finance Act”], are preferred by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai against common order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai³[Hereinafter, “CESTAT”] in Appeal Nos.ST/778 and 779/12 & ST/85346/13-Mum, which were preferred by M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited⁴[Hereinafter, “BPCL”] and M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited⁵[Hereinafter, “HPCL”], respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein⁶[Hereinafter, “the respondent-Corporations”] respectively.

1.1 CESTAT allowed the Appeals and set aside the Orders-in-Original Nos. 03-04 and 05-06/ST/SB/2012-13 dated 16.08.2012, whereby the Commissioner of Customs (TAR), Mumbai, confirmed the demand towards service tax against the respondent-Corporations.

Issue Involved

2. The issue centripetal to the controversy in the present appeals is whether the activities of the respondent-Corporations in relation to sale of Compressed Natural Gas⁷[Hereinafter, “CNG”] to the consumers provided by Mahanagar Gas Limited⁸[Hereinafter, “MGL”] at and through the petrol pump outlets owned by the respondent-Corporations would fall within the purview of “Business Auxiliary Service” as defined under Section 65(19) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act and consequently whether it would attract the liability of payment of service tax.

Attendant Facts

3. MGL was engaged in manufacturing and distributing CNG, which is excisable good. MGL had been receiving natural gas from Gas Authority of Ind