2013 (9) TMI 787 - SC - Service Tax

Appeal against the decision of Tribunal in 2012 (7) TMI 191 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Valuation under service tax - inclusion of TDS (withholding tax) where burden born by the recipient (payer) in the gross value - Technical consultancy and project consultancy services - Additional affidavit filed - Held that - From the affidavit, it transpires that the appellant has paid a total sum of Rs. 43,11,776/- which covers the service tax liability as observed in the impugned order dated 13.6.2012. In view of the above, issue notice confined to the remand of the matter to the Tribunal. Returnable in ten weeks. On the returnable date, the appellant shall also satisfy the Court about the maintainability of these appeals.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay condonation for filing additional affidavits.
2. Payment of service tax liability as observed in the impugned order dated 13.6.2012.
3. Remand of the matter to the Tribunal.
4. Maintainability of the appeals.

Delay Condonation and Payment of Service Tax Liability:
The appellant, in two separate instances, filed additional affidavits to clarify the payment made in protest and without prejudice towards the service tax liability. In the first affidavit, the appellant stated paying Rs. 88,18,811/- as per the final order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, covering the service tax liability as mentioned in the order. The second affidavit detailed a payment of Rs. 43,11,776/- in compliance with another order by the Tribunal, satisfying the service tax liability observed in the impugned order dated 13.6.2012. These payments were crucial in addressing the service tax liabilities highlighted in the Tribunal's orders.

Remand of the Matter to the Tribunal:
Considering the payments made by the appellant to cover the service tax liabilities as per the Tribunal's orders, the Supreme Court issued notices to remand the matter to the Tribunal for further proceedings. The appellant's compliance with the service tax liabilities as directed by the Tribunal led to the decision to return the matter to the Tribunal for necessary actions. The Court directed the matter to be returnable in ten weeks, emphasizing the need for adherence to the Tribunal's directives.

Maintainability of the Appeals:
The Court also directed the appellant to satisfy the Court about the maintainability of the appeals on the returnable date. This requirement indicated the Court's intention to ensure that the appeals were legally sound and met the necessary criteria for consideration. The appellant was tasked with demonstrating the maintainability of the appeals alongside the compliance with the service tax liabilities, highlighting the importance of procedural and legal validity in the appeals process.