2014 (2) TMI 957 - AT - Service Tax

Services of widening of road, repairing and maintenance of roads etc - retrospective amendment inserted by virtue of Section 97 and 98 of the Finance Act, 2012 relating to repair and maintenance of road service. - Held that - the demand to that extent is not sustainable in law. Computation error - Held that - appellant could not place sufficient reasons as to why the records could not be produced before the Ld. Adjudicating authority either by filing their reply or attending the hearing before Commissioner - matter remanded back subject to pre-deposit of small amount towards demand of service tax.

Summary

Issues involved:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, penalty under various sections of Finance Act, 1994, retrospective amendment under Section 97 and 98 of Finance Act, 2012, computation errors in demand calculation, non-chargeability of service tax for certain services, remand of the case to the adjudicating authority, reasonableness of deposit amount, compliance and further adjudication process.

Analysis:

The judgment concerns an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and related issues. The Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellant argued that a significant portion of the demand, around Rs. 2.07 Crores, pertains to services like widening of roads and maintenance, which are now deemed not liable for tax due to retrospective amendments under Section 97 and 98 of the Finance Act, 2012. Additionally, there were claims of computation errors in the demand calculation for certain services, and arguments were made regarding the non-chargeability of service tax for specific services provided by a Co-operative Society. The Ld. Chartered Accountant offered to deposit a reasonable amount of Rs.2.5 Lakhs to settle the matter.

The Revenue's representative objected to the new claims made by the appellant, stating that these were not presented during the adjudication process before the Ld. Commissioner. Despite this, the Revenue had no objection to remanding the case for fresh adjudication but emphasized the necessity for the appellant to comply with certain terms before the remand. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage with the consent of both parties.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the major portion of the demand was covered by the retrospective amendment, rendering it unsustainable in law. However, there were disputes regarding the remaining amount due to computation errors and non-chargeability of service tax. Noting that these issues were not raised before the Ld. Commissioner, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's stance that the appellant should comply with certain terms before remanding the case. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.2.5 Lakhs within four weeks and instructed the Commissioner to proceed with fresh adjudication after compliance, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed on the terms of the deposit and compliance with further adjudication processes. The appellant agreed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and committed to submitting their reply and evidence within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal emphasized that all issues remained open for consideration during the subsequent adjudication.