2014 (3) TMI 144 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of equivalent penalty u/s 78 - Benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 - Abatement of 75% from the gross taxable value of the services - Held that - applicant had produced necessary declaration in support of their claim of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004, as amended - original documents are required to be scrutinized, for verifying their claim of abatement. In the result, the matter be remanded to the original authority for consideration of these evidences and examine the eligibility of the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.2004 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Dispute regarding availing abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST. Non-acceptance of declarations by the Department due to lack of originality and specific details. Request for remand to adjudicating authority for consideration of evidences.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties amounting to Rs.1,27,01,250/-, along with equal penalty under Section 78 and other Finance Act provisions. The applicant claimed abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST for services received from goods transport operators between May 2005 to February 2008. The Department denied abatement citing missing declarations from the GTA regarding availing cenvat credit or benefits under Notification No.12/03-ST. The applicant later obtained necessary declarations as per Board's Circular, but the Department rejected them for not being in original form and lacking specific details like issuance date and addressee. The Tribunal found that the applicant now possessed all original documents and decided to remand the case to the original authority for scrutiny of these evidences to verify the abatement claim under the said Notification.

The Tribunal noted that the original documents were crucial for verifying the abatement claim and directed the appellants to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs within eight weeks as a pre-condition before remanding the case. The compliance was to be reported directly to the Ld. Commissioner for further adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant during the adjudication process. The Ld. Advocate mentioned that all original copies were filed before the Tribunal and requested their return, which was duly directed by the Tribunal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, keeping all issues open for further consideration by the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of waiver of pre-deposit, denial of abatement, non-acceptance of declarations, and the need for original documents for verification. The Tribunal decided to remand the case for scrutiny of original documents, directing the appellants to make a pre-deposit before further adjudication. The importance of providing a fair hearing to the appellant and the return of original documents were also highlighted in the judgment.