2014 (7) TMI 284 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service - benefit of Notification No. 1/2006 which provides abatement of 67% during the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 - Held that - Important submission of the appellant on the eligibility for benefit of the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. which provides 67% abatement in respect of erection, commissioning or installation service has not been considered by the adjudicating authority is correct - Therefore, matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax on Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and Erection, Commissioning, and Installation Service for specific periods.
2. Availment of benefit of Notification No. 1/2006 regarding abatement during a specific period.
3. Lack of opportunity for personal hearing after submission of a report by the original authority.
4. Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. for Erection, Commissioning, or Installation service under the composition scheme.

Analysis:
1. The first appeal addressed a demand for service tax on two types of services for distinct periods. The demands were split before and after 1.6.2007, with an additional demand under Maintenance & Repair Service. The appellant sought a personal hearing after a report was submitted, claiming lack of new points in the report and insufficient opportunity for a personal hearing.

2. The second appeal focused on the appellant's eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006, providing a 67% abatement for a specific period. The appellant paid service tax under the composition scheme, but the department contested the classification of the service as Works Contract Service, challenging the benefit of the notification.

3. The appellant argued that the original authority's report did not introduce new points and requested consideration for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. The appellant contended that they were eligible for the abatement under the notification, which had not been adequately addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the original adjudicating authority.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submissions and found that the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. had not been properly considered. Consequently, both appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case. The Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement and instructed that the already deposited amount need not be refunded immediately.