2007 (5) TMI 138 - AT - Service Tax

Payment of service tax Appellant claim for the adjustment of the wrongly paid excess amount of service tax Commissioner directed to hear the matter afresh on the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakh within 2 weeks and decided thereafter after considering documents

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming service tax demand, interest, and penalties under Sections 73, 66, 68, 75, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the Commissioner's order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 22,13,598 under Sections 73, 66, and 68 of the Finance Act 1944, along with interest and penalties. The appellant initially faced challenges in producing documentary evidence to support their adjustment claims. However, during the proceedings, it was demonstrated that the service tax was calculated for various transactions, including refunds, dishonored cheques, double payments, excess customer payments, and goods sales. The Commissioner ruled against the appellant due to insufficient documentation and non-compliance with return requirements. The appellant's representatives sought a remand to produce the necessary evidence and offered to deposit a sum for potential adjustment pending the outcome.

The authorized representative for the department acknowledged the relevance of the presented records but emphasized the need for a remand to allow the Commissioner to consider them properly. Both parties agreed that a substantial deposit by the appellant could facilitate the remand process. After hearing both sides and noting the absence of crucial documentary evidence due to the company's staff negligence, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs with the Commissioner within two weeks. This deposit would enable a fresh hearing before the Commissioner, allowing all parties to present relevant records for a lawful decision. The Tribunal set a three-month timeline for the Commissioner to resolve the matter post the deposit. The Rs. 2 lakhs deposit could be adjusted based on the final decision. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the previous order, remanding the case for a new decision by the Commissioner, and disposed of the appeal and application accordingly.