2010 (12) TMI 551 - AT - Service Tax

Section under 85(4) - When the principles of natural justice were not followed by the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) had two choices before him (i) either to set aside the order of the original authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and allow the appeal of the respondents herein; or (ii) to remand the matter for fresh decision. Held that in the case of another Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. World Vision 2009 (11) TMI 452 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has taken a similar view holding that in service tax matters, Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of remand under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is without any basis and the same is rejected - The cross objection filed by the Respondents stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to remand the matter to the original authority in a service tax case.
2. Whether the powers under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable to service tax cases under the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 1:
The judgment dealt with an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a service tax matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) had annulled the Order-in-Original and directed the lower authority to adjudicate the show-cause notice afresh due to the absence of principles of natural justice in the original authority's decision-making process. The Committee of Commissioners argued that under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand the matter. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) derives the authority to hear service tax appeals from Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which explicitly allows for passing remand orders if deemed necessary. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) chose to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the original authority to ensure justice, rather than setting aside the order outright, which would have resulted in irrecoverable losses for the Public Revenue. The Tribunal rejected the appeal by the Revenue, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted within his powers under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 2:
The judgment also addressed the applicability of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to service tax cases under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 35A is not applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the latter deliberately excludes the former. The Committee of Commissioners' reference to Section 35A in its review order was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that the powers for service tax appeals are derived from Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which grants the Commissioner (Appeals) the authority to hear and determine appeals, including passing remand orders when necessary. The judgment cited a similar view taken by another Tribunal bench in a different case, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' power of remand in service tax matters under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal appreciated the efforts of the amicus curiae for bringing relevant legal provisions to its notice.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to remand matters in service tax cases under the Finance Act, 1994, as per Section 85, and that Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to service tax matters. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case for a fresh decision, rejecting the appeal by the Revenue.