2011 (4) TMI 256 - AT - Service Tax

application of the Notification benefit granted under No. 1/2006 dated 1.3.2006, - GTA - Held that once the notification benefit is permissible to the Appellant that cannot be casually examined by the Authority but should be examined in accordance with the mandate of the Notification - While doing so, entire legal pleading and factual evidence of the Appellant should not go out of his consideration - So also the gravity of the default, if any, should receive his proper consideration and also reasonable cause, if any, should be examined before levy of penalty - Concession in respect of penalty if any permissible should be examined and allowed in accordance with law - send the matter back to the ld. original Authority to hear the Appellant thoroughly and pass appropriate order.

Summary

Issues:
Service Tax liability under Notification No. 1/2006 dated 1.3.2006, bonafide belief in Cenvat credit admissibility, ex-parte order impact on tax demand and penalty, reasonable cause for relief under Finance Act, 1994, authority's failure to grant reasonable opportunity for explanation.

Analysis:

1. Service Tax Liability and Notification Benefit:
The Appellant, a GTA service provider, discharged a portion of the Service Tax liability under Notification No. 1/2006 dated 1.3.2006. The remaining balance was paid in instalments from the CENVAT Account. However, a discrepancy arose regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit, leading to the Appellant paying the disputed amount later. The Appellant argued that the tax demand of Rs.1,39,76,300 should not apply due to the Notification benefit. The Appellant contended that proper interpretation of law was crucial, and the ex-parte order hindered the Appellant's ability to present a bonafide claim.

2. Bonafide Belief and Penalty Consideration:
The Appellant maintained that the initial mistake in understanding the law was rectified promptly upon realization. The Appellant emphasized the absence of deliberate default or breach of law, advocating for the exclusion of penalty under Section 78. Seeking relief under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Appellant stressed the significance of a reasonable cause, which was allegedly overlooked due to the ex-parte nature of the order.

3. Authority's Examination and Opportunity:
The Tribunal scrutinized the procedural aspects, noting the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the Appellant to present its case adequately. Highlighting the importance of a comprehensive review, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the Authority to consider all legal and factual aspects, including the gravity of any default. The Tribunal directed the matter back to the original Authority for a thorough hearing and appropriate decision, emphasizing the necessity of a fair evaluation based on the Notification's provisions and relevant legal considerations.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of procedural fairness, proper interpretation of law, and the necessity for authorities to provide ample opportunities for parties to present their cases effectively. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a reevaluation reflects a commitment to ensuring justice and adherence to legal principles in tax liability disputes.