2011 (3) TMI 929 - AT - Service Tax

Demand for service tax - Rent-a-cab service - appellant is an illiterate driver and he had rented two vehicles - He did not know the legal provisions - Learned Consultant submitted that appellant had not received the show cause notice at all and after receiving the intimation for personal hearing he appeared for hearing - Therefore, the fact that he had failed to appear before the original adjudicating authority or give reply to the show cause notice should not have been resulted in rejection of appeal, without considering the submissions - Hence, it is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay and further the matter is required to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority so that appellant gets an opportunity to defend his case properly - Thus, stay petition is allowed and appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Demand for service tax on rent-a-cab service provided by the appellant; Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to failure to produce evidence before original adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a demand for service tax on a rent-a-cab service provided by the appellant. The appellant, an illiterate driver, had rented two vehicles to a company, one of which was a mini-bus driven by the appellant himself. The appellant claimed ignorance of legal provisions and alleged non-receipt of the show cause notice. Despite appearing for a personal hearing and receiving the notice, the appellant failed to file a reply or attend subsequent hearings. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing the appellant's belated claim regarding the mini-bus as an additional ground. The Tribunal noted the appellant's illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge, emphasizing the need to consider his submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to grant the appellant another opportunity to present evidence and documents in defense. The Tribunal considered it a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit, granting a stay, and remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fair defense. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case was supported by the absence of objections from the Departmental Representative, despite the appellant's prior failures to utilize opportunities provided by lower authorities. Ultimately, the stay petition was allowed, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings before the original adjudicating authority.