2017 (4) TMI 1314 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary service - Appellant s grievance is that the services provided are not related to Business Auxiliary Service since the appellant being a coal crushing company, its activities were manufacture and the goods have suffered excise duty - Held that - Since we have remanded the matter in a batch of identical cases, it is preferable for the appellant to guide the adjudicating authority with all the relevant decisions, which have come after he has passed the order and lead evidence, if any - appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of services provided by a coal crushing company under Business Auxiliary Service.
2. Taxability of service under the entry "Cargo Handling Services."

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the taxability of services provided by a coal crushing company under Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant argued that their activities were manufacturing and not related to Business Auxiliary Service. They contended that the goods had already suffered excise duty, and therefore, were not governed by the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant relied on a "Coal Supply Agreement" under NCDP to support their claim. However, the document was not presented before the original authority during adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that documents crucial to the matter should be produced before the appropriate authority for a fair assessment. The appellant was directed to submit the entire set of documents for the Revenue's proper defense.

2. The second issue concerns the taxability of services under the entry "Cargo Handling Services." The Addl. Commissioner argued that a similar issue had been before the Apex Court, which remanded it for a decision by a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench ruled in favor of the Revenue. The appellant's counsel contended that the previous judgments were not applicable as the facts of the present case were distinct. Given the remand of the matter in a batch of cases, the Tribunal advised the appellant to present all relevant decisions that emerged after the original order and provide any additional evidence or pleadings. The adjudicating authority was instructed to record the submissions and evidence presented before making a well-reasoned decision.

In conclusion, all appeals were remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision due to the significant revenue involved. The Tribunal urged a swift re-adjudication within six months of receiving the order. The appellant was directed to request a hearing date from the authority to proceed with the case efficiently.