2013 (9) TMI 864 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Goods Transport Agency Service - Held that - It transpires that Revenue is helpless today to defend its case in terms of the cryptic order that has come in appeal to Tribunal. As has been recorded that the appellant seeks rational decision on the three issues in controversy by a speaking and reasoned order on consideration of material facts and evidence on record. It is therefore necessary to remit back the appeal to the learned Adjudicating Authority for expeditious re-adjudication following due process of law since huge revenue of more than ₹ 1 crore is involved in the matter - whether liability of subcontractor does not arise on discharge of liability by principal contractor is a question to be examined - matter remitted back.

Summary

Issues: Stay matter listed for hearing; cryptic order passed without reasons; Site Formation service tax payment; Commercial and Industrial Construction service defense with evidence; Goods Transport Agency Service finding missing; Remitting matter for re-adjudication.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the issue at hand was a stay matter listed for hearing, where a cryptic order was passed without providing reasons or considering the submissions and evidence presented by the appellant. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back for re-adjudication without requiring a pre-deposit to ensure justice is served. The appellant had responded to the show-cause notice regarding Site Formation service tax payment, stating that the tax had been paid by the principal contractor, which could be verified by the Revenue. The appellant also defended the allegation of providing Commercial and Industrial Construction service by presenting evidence that the value of goods used in construction was eligible for deduction, calling for proper adjudication that was not done initially.

Regarding the Goods Transport Agency Service, the adjudication order lacked a finding considering the material facts and evidence on record. The appellant prayed for the matter to be remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for a comprehensive review of all the evidence for a proper adjudication. The Revenue raised a point about the liability of the subcontractor when the principal contractor discharges the liability, highlighting a question that needed examination. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue was unable to defend its case due to the cryptic order, and emphasized the need for a reasoned decision on the issues in controversy with consideration of all material facts and evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Adjudicating Authority for expeditious re-adjudication following due process of law, especially considering the substantial revenue involved in the matter exceeding Rs. 1 crore. It was emphasized that the Revenue's submissions should also receive equal consideration during the re-adjudication process. Ultimately, the stay application and appeal were disposed of, with the order being dictated and pronounced in open court.