2013 (1) TMI 92 - AT - Service Tax

Short payment of Service Tax - GTA services - period January 2005 to March 2007 - Held that - This issue needs to be appreciated factually as the first appellate authority has recorded that the appellant has produced challans which were not in respect of the period for which the demand has been raised, while it is the claim of the appellant that they have paid differential Service Tax liability. Since the issue needs to be factually verified and concluded set aside impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice - assessee s appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand for short payment of Service Tax liability.

Analysis:
The Stay Petition was filed against Order-in-Appeal No.291/2012/ COMMR(A)/RBT/RAJ, which upheld the adjudicating authority's order confirming the demand for the differential Service Tax liability on the appellant for the period January 2005 to March 2007. The appellate tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of promptly as it was a narrow issue. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded with the appeal's disposal.

Both parties agreed on the demand for short payment of Service Tax related to the services received by the appellant from GTA services. Upon reviewing Annexure 2 at Page No.35 of the appeal memoranda, it was noted that the demand amounted to Rs.12.26 lakhs as the differential amount. The tribunal observed that the factual appreciation of this issue was essential, especially since the appellant claimed to have paid the differential Service Tax liability but the first appellate authority raised concerns about the challans not matching the period in question.

Given the need for factual verification and a fresh consideration of the issue, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The tribunal emphasized the importance of the adjudicating authority reconsidering the issue afresh while adhering to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues open for further examination. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the tribunal.