2012 (3) TMI 36 - AT - Service Tax

Stay petition dispute regarding quantum of commission income - non co-operation at the adjudication stage Held that - Dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we remand the matter back to the Commissioner to consider the details appearing in the balance sheet since figures therefrom were adopted and agreement order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over consultancy agreement and value of remuneration for taxation.
2. Allegation of non-cooperation by the appellant during adjudication.
3. Decision on stay petition and appeal.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the consultancy agreement between the parties and the value of remuneration for taxation. The appellant's remuneration is claimed to be 2% of the purchase order value, which amounts to Rs. 5,50,37,307. However, the appellant argues that considering the agreement's contents and the proper measure of value for taxation, the liability should be reduced significantly to Rs. 58,000. The Revenue representative, on the other hand, points out that the appellant's balance sheet shows a substantial commission received, which was used as a basis for adjudication.

2. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal decides not to keep the appeal pending due to the sole dispute arising from the appellant's alleged non-cooperation during adjudication. To ensure justice is served, the Tribunal dispenses with the requirement of pre-deposit and remands the matter back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is instructed to consider the details from the balance sheet, as these figures were utilized in the adjudication order. The appellant is directed to provide all necessary defense details and appear before the adjudicating authority within one month of receiving the order. Failure to produce evidence may result in an ex-parte adjudication, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and timely submission of evidence.

3. The Tribunal concludes by disposing of both the stay petition and the appeal in the manner outlined above. The decision highlights the significance of cooperation, evidence submission, and adherence to procedural requirements to ensure a fair and just adjudication process.