2013 (1) TMI 603 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Extended period of limitation - Bonafide belief - Business auxiliary services - Business support services - Assessee received credit notes in July and June 2004, for rendering the service of customer relationship services - Non-speaking order - Principles of natural justice Held that - The SCN was issued in the year 2009 for the credit notes and payment received by the appellant in 2004. Appellant has been consistently taking a plea before both the lower authorities that they were having a bonafide belief that these services would fall under business support services and not under business auxiliary services. Adjudicating authority has not recorded any reasoning for rejecting the claim of the appellant as regards the limitation and the first appellate authority has not even recorded a single sentence on the question of limitation. Both the orders are non speaking orders, having not addressed the question of limitation before raised. Hence remand back to AO

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax liability, interest, and penalties under various sections.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax liability, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs.2,65,185/-. The amounts were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority based on the appellant's failure to discharge service tax liability for services rendered under business auxiliary services.

2. The appellant argued that they received credit notes for providing customer relationship services to Gujarat Adani Ports, contending that the services fell under business support services, not business auxiliary services. They claimed that the show cause notice issued in 2009 for transactions in 2004 was beyond the limitation period. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority did not provide reasoning or findings on the limitation issue, rendering their orders non-speaking.

3. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority failed to address the limitation issue raised by the appellant. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to follow the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all issues open for reconsideration.

4. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issue afresh in light of the lack of reasoning on the limitation aspect in the previous orders. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing legal issues such as limitation and ensuring that orders are comprehensive and comply with the principles of natural justice.