2016 (10) TMI 1097 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of SCN - It was the case of the appellant that the respondent was not entitled to issue the show cause notice in respect of an amount of ₹ 36,54,460/- as the service tax for the construction made for M/s. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering was paid by the appellant even before the issuance of the SCN - Whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeal filed by the appellant by a cryptic order and without considering the grounds raised by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal? - Held that - Since the order of the Tribunal is a cryptic and not a reasoned one, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the assessee, in accordance with law. Since the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, it would be necessary in the interest of justice to permit the appellant-assessee to canvass the point in regard to the liability of the appellant-assessee to pay the service tax in respect of the construction carried out for the Nagpur Improvement Trust as the appellant claims to have executed the agreements with the Nagpur Improvement Trust a couple of years before the provision for the payment of service tax was brought into effect - matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal partly upholding tax liability, interest, and penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant, a partnership firm in construction business, disputed service tax liability for construction work done for Nagpur Improvement Trust. Appellant had paid tax for other projects before notice. Tribunal's order was criticized for being cryptic and not addressing appellant's grounds, including improper show cause notice, value calculation, and penalty imposition. Respondent argued Tribunal rightly upheld penalties but acknowledged tax payment before notice. However, respondent claimed appellant did not raise the issue of liability for Nagpur Improvement Trust construction before Tribunal. The Court admitted the appeal on the question of whether Tribunal's decision was justified and found Tribunal failed to consider crucial grounds raised by appellant. The order was deemed cryptic, leading to remand for fresh decision by Tribunal. Appellant was allowed to argue the liability issue for Nagpur Improvement Trust construction. The substantial question of law was answered against the Department, and the Central Excise Appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision without costs.