2013 (11) TMI 507 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax on GTA services - reverse charge - Whether the applicant s Shyamnagar Unit has discharged Service Tax during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 - Held that - appellant had submitted various documents including a chart reflecting the payment shown at annexure 9 of the appeal memorandum wherein they have categorically stated amount of service tax paid by their head office on account of GTA services relating to Shyamnagar Unit and other units. The Ld. Commissioner could not analyse the same and also the affidavit in support of their claim. In these circumstances, for appreciation of the evidences submitted by the appellant including the chartered accountant s certificate now placed before us, the case needs to be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner to decide the issue afresh - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The application sought waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty totaling Rs.77,16,367. The appellant's representative argued that the demand pertained to Service Tax payment by the Shyamnagar Unit on GTA services, with most of the amount paid by the Head Office in Kolkata. Despite presenting evidence to the Commissioner, the demand was confirmed due to alleged lack of documentation proving the discharge of liability by either unit. The appellant later submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing payment by the Head Office, not presented during adjudication. The Assistant Registrar acknowledged the submission of documents not considered by the Adjudicating Authority and agreed to remand the matter for reconsideration.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal without requiring pre-deposit, focusing on whether the Shyamnagar Unit had paid Service Tax from 2005-06 to 2009-10. The appellant claimed the Head Office in Kolkata handled the payments, supported by various documents, including a payment chart and an affidavit. However, the Commissioner's findings questioned the lack of basic documentation. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's analysis inadequate, noting the appellant's submission of crucial evidence, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate. Consequently, the case was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and the submission of additional evidence by both parties. The appeal was allowed for remand, keeping all issues open for further consideration.