2013 (1) TMI 68 - AT - Service Tax

Wrong abatement claimed under Notification No. 15/2004-ST - Held that - As seen from the records that the appellant has not agitated the issue of eligibility of abatement of 67% on the materials supplied by them for rendering Repair and Maintenance Services to ONGC before the adjudicating authority & have raised this point before the first appellate authority. Thus interest of justice demands that appellant should be allowed to raise this point before the adjudicating authority in order to get an order on the merits of the issue - direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance to the adjudicating authority on 16.01.2013.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed service tax, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 due to wrong abatement claimed under Notification No. 15/2004-ST.

Analysis:

1. Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 13,61,350/- confirmed as service tax, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, found the issue to be narrow. Consequently, the application for waiver of pre-deposit was allowed, and the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.

2. Issue of Abatement Eligibility:
The main issue in this case revolved around the appellant's ineligibility for availing abatement. The appellant had not challenged the eligibility of abatement of 67% on materials supplied for Repair and Maintenance Services to ONGC. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant argued that they did not use the pipelines for executing the contracts, which were provided for maintenance services. It was noted that the appellant had not raised this point before the adjudicating authority but had done so before the first appellate authority, which was not accepted due to the failure to raise it initially. The Tribunal acknowledged this fact but emphasized the importance of allowing the appellant to raise this point before the adjudicating authority for a fair decision.

3. Directions for Compliance:
In light of the above, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- within four weeks and report compliance to the adjudicating authority. Upon compliance, the adjudicating authority was instructed to reconsider the issue afresh, considering all points raised by the appellant. The Tribunal stressed the importance of following the principles of natural justice in reaching a conclusion.

4. Final Disposition:
Ultimately, the stay petition and appeal were disposed of by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings in line with the directions provided by the Tribunal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, ensuring clarity and legal validity in the decision-making process.