2011 (10) TMI 242 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Amount paid on oral instructions of audit party - Business closed - show cause issued - Assessee contended no written communication was given to them explaining the method followed by the revenue to demand the service tax - Held - Case referred back to original adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Discrepancy in service tax payment for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04.
2. Imposition of penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994.
3. Lack of written communication regarding the method followed by the revenue to demand service tax.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Discrepancy in service tax payment
The appellant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,09,577/- for service tax, but only paid Rs. 85,868/-. A show cause notice was issued for the balance amount, leading to the confirmation of demand for service tax of Rs. 35,654. The appellant claimed to have paid the lesser amount based on oral instructions from the Superintendent of Central Excise during an audit. However, they were unable to locate any written communication supporting this claim. The appellant argued that they followed the accrual method of accounting and paid tax on the amount received, believing they had paid the full amount as calculated by the audit party.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalties
The penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed on the appellant due to the discrepancy in service tax payment. The appellant contended that they had no intention to evade payment and requested another opportunity to provide a reconciliation statement showing the actual amount received for services provided and the amount paid. The learned AR did not object to the matter being remanded for further consideration.

Issue 3: Lack of written communication
The appellant highlighted the lack of written communication from the audit party explaining the method used by the revenue to demand the service tax. They requested another opportunity to present their case with a reconciliation statement. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, directing them to decide the case afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case effectively.