9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 401 - HC - Service TaxEffect of introduction of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 2003 - Liability to file return is cast on the providers of such services only under Section 71A - Held that - It is a settled principle of law that in order to examine as to whether the law down by the Supreme Court in a particular case is applicable to the facts of the case or not, what is first required to be seen is the facts of case in hand and then, the law has to be applied with a view to find out as to whether the factual issues can be decided in favour of the assessee or in favour of the Revenue. So long as therefore facts are not appreciated, mere quoting of the law would not suffice - we are constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly remanded to the Tribunal for its decision on merits - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-II Versus LH. SUGAR FACTORIES LTD. 2005 (7) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal filed by the Union of India under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against a common Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. - Justification of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. - Necessity to remand the case to the Tribunal due to lack of factual details in the impugned order. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Union of India (Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against a common Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The central question was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. 2. The Tribunal based its decision on the issue settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the matter was no longer res integra and was covered by previous decisions. The Tribunal had observed that the liability to file a return was cast only on the providers of services under Section 71A, and not under Section 73. As the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the Department in a similar case, the Tribunal upheld its decision to dismiss the appeals filed by the Department. 3. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's order lacked essential factual details necessary for a proper adjudication. The High Court emphasized the importance of including factual controversies in the order to enable a thorough examination of the legal issues. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal's failure to mention the facts of the case hindered the proper application of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. As a result, the High Court decided to remand the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, instructing the Tribunal to outline the factual aspects of the case and consider relevant legal precedents, including the amendments introduced by the Parliament in Service Tax laws. 4. The High Court directed the Tribunal to issue a fresh notice to the respondent-assessee for a hearing and set a date for the appellant to appear before the Tribunal with a copy of the remand order. The Court stressed the importance of a detailed factual analysis in conjunction with applicable legal principles for a comprehensive and just decision.
|
