2014 (5) TMI 690 - AT - Service Tax

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Information Technology and Software service - Sponsorship service - Held that - Since all the issues above have not been considered by the original adjudicating authority because they were not placed before him and the Commissioner (A) because he considered the same as additional evidence, we consider that the request made by the learned CA to remand the matter at this stage itself is reasonable. Accordingly, we consider the deposits already made by the appellant sufficient and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of all the issues that have been raised and that may be raised at the time of adjudication by the lower adjudicating authority - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand under 'Information Technology and Software service' and 'Sponsorship service'.
2. Reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
3. Excess payment made by the Appellants.
4. Rejection of appeal on the grounds of additional evidence.
5. Grounds not considered by the original adjudicating authority.
6. Request for remand of the matter for fresh consideration of all issues.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the demand made under the categories of 'Information Technology and Software service' and 'Sponsorship service'. An amount was demanded, along with interest, totaling Rs.1,27,193/- and Rs.15,450/- respectively. Additionally, a reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules amounting to Rs.1,73,045/- was ordered for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2011.

2. The Appellants had deposited the entire service tax and interest, resulting in an excess payment of Rs.1,03,529/-. The rejection of the appeal was based on the grounds that additional evidence was presented before the Commissioner (A) instead of additional grounds. However, the Court found this reasoning incorrect as the grounds were not considered by the original adjudicating authority either.

3. The judgment highlighted the grounds that were not considered by the original adjudicating authority, including the claim for deduction of reimbursable expenditure, reversal of proportionate credit related to trading activity, and contestation of the classification of service under 'Sponsorship Service'. These issues were not raised before the Commissioner (A) due to being treated as additional evidence.

4. Considering the above, the Court deemed the request for remand of the matter for fresh consideration of all issues raised and those that may arise during adjudication as reasonable. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, ensuring the Appellants have a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides a detailed understanding of the issues involved and the Court's decision regarding each matter.