9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 179 - AT - Service TaxValuation of taxable services - inclusion of advances - Dredging and Barging - Mis-match between the findings of the Commissioner and the operative portion of the order of the Commissioner - held that - there is a mis-match between the demand as confirmed by the Commissioner and the findings in the body of the order. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Commissioner and, therefore the prayer for remand deserves to be accepted.
Issues: Mis-match between demand confirmed by Commissioner and findings in the order; Remand for fresh consideration by Commissioner
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, consisting of Judges P.G. Chacko and M. Veeraiyan, heard the appeal extensively. The issue arose from a show-cause notice issued proposing a demand of Rs.56,33,845/- along with interest and penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that the demand related to activities for a specific entity were not liable for tax due to exemption eligibility. However, the appellant's counsel pointed out that the Commissioner's order confirming the demand did not consider the favorable decisions regarding valuation. The Additional Commissioner acknowledged that the confirmed demand required downward revision, leading to a request for remand by the appellant's counsel. The Tribunal observed a mis-match between the demand confirmed by the Commissioner and the findings in the order. Consequently, they deemed it appropriate for the matter to undergo fresh consideration by the Commissioner. Both parties, including the Department, agreed to the proposal for remand. To facilitate this fresh consideration, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and remanded the matter to them. The appellant was granted the opportunity to make further submissions, and a hearing was scheduled for a new decision. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of.
|
