2012 (6) TMI 667 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demand on supervision, sampling and analysis services - agreement entered - Held that - As the service tax has been paid on supervision, sampling and analysis charges, KPCL,no demand is sustainable against the appellant - as the appellant has failed to produce the invoices raised by the KPCL wherein the service tax has already been paid the matter needs re-examination at the end of the lower authorities.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of service tax, liability for payment of supervision, sampling, and analysis charges, non-inclusion of charges in gross value for service tax calculation, production of invoices for charges, sustainability of demands, remand to original adjudicating authority for re-examination.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Service Tax:
The appellant, M/s. Gupta Coalfields & Washeries Ltd., filed an appeal against the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.16,86,683/-, along with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute arose from an agreement with M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPCL) for obtaining raw coal from M/s. Western Coal Field Ltd. (WCL), washing the coal, and supplying it to KPCL. The liability for supervision, sampling, and analysis charges was with the appellant. The issue was whether the supervision, sampling, and analysis charges were included in the gross value for service tax calculation.

2. Adjudication and Appeal:
After considering submissions from both sides, the tribunal decided to address the stay application and the appeal simultaneously. The appellant contended that M/s. SGL discharged the service tax on supervision, sampling, and analysis activities and issued invoices to KPCL. However, these documents were not presented before the lower authorities. The tribunal found that if KPCL paid the service tax on these charges, no demand could be sustained against the appellant. As the invoices were not produced, the matter required re-examination by the lower authorities to determine if service tax on the entire activity had been paid.

3. Remand and Opportunity for Hearing:
In the interest of justice, the tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of whether service tax on the entire activity had been settled. It was emphasized that the appellant must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case during this re-examination process.

4. Disposition:
The tribunal disposed of the appeal and the stay application by remanding the matter for further examination by the original adjudicating authority. The decision was made to ensure a fair assessment of whether the service tax on supervision, sampling, and analysis charges had been appropriately addressed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, tribunal's decision, and the direction for further examination by the adjudicating authority.