2010 (7) TMI 311 - AT - Service Tax

Interest and Penalty - service tax paid on GTA service incurred by the appellant on transportation of goods - they had received vegetables by transport agency and they are liable to pay service tax as per benefit of Notification No. 33/2004-S.T - due to closure of the unit during the relevant period when the adjudication process was going on and the first appellate authority decided the matter, they could not produce any documents before the authority to substantiate their claim that the vehicles are used for transport of vegetables - Held that - In the absence of any documentary evidences before the lower authorities, they could not have come to any conclusion - remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh

Summary

Issues: Stay petition seeking waiver of service tax, interest, and penalties; interpretation of Notification No. 33/2004-S.T.; lack of documentary evidence; remand to Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration.

The judgment pertains to a stay petition seeking waiver of service tax, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs. 2,35,235, Rs. 200, and Rs. 2,35,235 respectively. The issue at hand revolves around the service tax paid on GTA service for transporting goods. The appellant argues that they are liable to pay service tax as per the benefit of Notification No. 33/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004, due to receiving vegetables by a transport agency. However, during the adjudication process and the first appellate authority's decision, the appellant failed to produce documents substantiating their claim that the vehicles were used for transporting vegetables.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal notes the narrow compass of the issue and decides to waive the pre-deposit condition, proceeding with the appeal's disposal. The learned Counsel emphasizes that the crux of the matter is whether the appellant actually received vegetables transported by GTA, as this would impact the applicability of Notification 33/2004. The Tribunal observes that the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice or provide any documentary evidence to support their position, leading to a lack of conclusive findings by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal deems it necessary to grant the appellant an opportunity to present the required documents to justify their claim.

In light of the absence of documentary evidence and the need for a more thorough examination of the facts, the Tribunal refrains from expressing any opinion on the case's merits. Instead, they remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice. The stay application and appeal are thus disposed of through this remand, allowing for a more comprehensive review of the issue at hand.