2012 (7) TMI 193 - AT - Service Tax

Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of the pre-deposit ordered - issue involved, whether services rendered as to the measurement of land would fall under the category of Consulting Engineering service - period July 2001 to March 2004 - Held that - Definition of Consulting Engineers during the relevant period needs to be considered by first appellate authority before coming to any conclusion. Since the issue has not been addressed by the first appellate authority on merit, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be reconsidered by first appellate authority. Also, appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved - appeal allowed by way of remand to first appellate authority.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty under Finance Act, 1994; Services rendered falling under Consulting Engineering Service category; Appeal dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit order; Reconsideration of the issue on merit by first appellate authority.

Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty:
The Stay Petition was filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.3,67,734/- along with interest and penalties under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority confirmed these amounts as tax liability arising from the services of Consulting Engineering Service provided by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appeal itself could be disposed of as the first appellate authority had not passed an order on merit but had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit as the appellant established a prima facie case in their favor and proceeded to take up the appeal for disposal.

Services Rendered as Consulting Engineering Service:
The main issue in the appeal pertained to whether the services rendered by the appellant, related to the measurement of land, fell under the category of Consulting Engineering Service for the period from July 2001 to March 2004. The Tribunal noted that the definition of Consulting Engineers needed to be considered by the first appellate authority before reaching a conclusion. Since the first appellate authority had not addressed this issue on merit and had solely dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, the Tribunal decided that the matter needed to be reconsidered in the correct perspective. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue on merit without insisting on any pre-deposit from the appellant. It was emphasized that all issues were to be kept open during the remand proceedings, and the first appellate authority was directed to adhere to the principles of natural justice before reaching a conclusion.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration of the issue on merit, ensuring that the appellant's case was reviewed comprehensively without the requirement of pre-deposit. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and instructed the first appellate authority to follow the principles of natural justice during the reconsideration process.