CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Service Tax Appeal No. 23353 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.VIZ-EXCUS-002-COM-010-14-15 dated 26.06.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam)

M/s Ramakrishna Electricals Winding .. APPELLANT Works D.No. 69-4-2/1, Opp to Boat Club, Pithapuram Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533 003.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam - II Commissionerate, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035.

APPEARANCE:

Shri T. Ramesh & Ms. Viswapriya, Advocates for the Appellant.

Shri V. Srikanth Rao, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30017/2026 Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 [ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

M/s Ramakrishna Electricals Winding Works (hereinafter referred to as appellant) has filed this appeal against the impugned order / Order-in- Original No.VIZ-EXCUS-002-COM-010-14-15 dated 26.06.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam.

2. The fact in brief, the appellant is engaged in the activity of carrying out rewinding of the various kinds of Electrical Motors. The appellant’s claimed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, dated 20.06.2003 and reflected the same in the invoices raised during the disputed period. The appellant’s filed their ST-3 Returns, disclosing the total value of Service Tax payable and paid by claiming the benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST. The value of goods sold or deemed to have been sold, requires to be exclude for the purpose of computing the value of service rendered by the appellant.

3. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant by dated 19.10.2010 for the period of disputes April 2005 to March 2010, invoking extended period of limitation along with proposal to impose penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority by the O-I-O No. 6/2012 dated 27.01.2012 confirming the entire demand with interest and imposed penalty against appellant. The appellant filed an Appeal No.ST/953/2012, before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 2722 of 2013 dated 31.12.2013 and held that the appellant is entitled to claim exclusion of the value of the goods and raw materials claimed to have been sold to the recipient of the service as part of their repair and maintenance service. The matter was remanded for Denovo consideration only for the purpose of producing the proof with regard to the value of goods and materials deemed to have been sold. In principle, the Tribunal has held that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-SST in the proceeding, the appellant produced, the cost Accountant’s Certificate, evidencing the value of goods or material used and sold or transferred to the customers of the appellant while rendering the service of repair and maintenance. The appellant also submits their submissions against invocation of limitation.

5. The Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order confirming the entire demand raised in Show Cause Notice, apart from imposing equal amount of penalty under Section, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order in the Denovo proceeding has been passed contrary to the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant’s case for the very same period. Final Order dated 31.12.2013 has attained finality and the impugned order is beyond the scope of the said Final Order of this Tribunal. The Commissioner has traversed beyond the Final Order dated 31.12.2013 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, which was already held to be available for the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the Learned Commissioner is not sustainable.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no suppression with intent to evade payment of Service Ta