2014 (7) TMI 408 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Commercial Training or Coaching Services and Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - Held that - Case was not at all defended at the original adjudication level and the appellants themselves represented their case. They did not reply to the show-cause notice at all and finally the Managing Director had appeared before the Commissioner and he could not give sufficient details to support the case that there were several aspects of the matter where service tax was not leviable and appellant had given only few bills which obviously were not sufficient for the Commissioner to decide the issue - case was not defended effectively and properly before the Commissioner and therefore, the matter may be remanded at this stage itself instead of keeping the issue pending after depositing the amount - stay granted partly - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Alleged short payment of service tax under Commercial Training or Coaching Services and Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services categories, imposition of penalties, defense of case at original adjudication level, remand of the matter for proper defense.

Analysis:
The case involved allegations of short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 51,97,290 under the categories of Commercial Training or Coaching Services and Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services. The appellants were issued a show-cause notice proposing the demand of service tax along with interest and penalties. The impugned order by the Commissioner demanded the service tax and imposed penalties under various provisions of the Act. The appellants argued that the services provided were for project work in automation of office procedures, not just manpower services. They admitted to a realistic liability of Rs. 25 lakhs, out of which they had already paid nearly Rs. 15 lakhs. The Tribunal considered the submissions and directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 10 weeks to hear the appeal.

Regarding the defense of the case at the original adjudication level, it was noted that the appellants did not effectively defend their case. The Managing Director appeared before the Commissioner but could not provide sufficient details to support their case. The appellants themselves admitted that the case was not defended properly. Despite the failure to utilize opportunities given, the Tribunal observed that there was a need for the appellants to submit all contracts, documents, and explain the situation clearly. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to enable the appellants to present their case properly before the Commissioner, subject to the condition of depositing Rs. 10 lakhs within 10 weeks.

In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order with the condition that the appellants deposit Rs. 10,00,000 within the specified time frame. Failure to comply would result in the Commissioner treating the order-in-original as final and enforcing the demand. The decision was made to give the appellants another chance to defend their case properly, considering the amount already paid and the potential liability. Both the stay application and appeal were disposed of based on the above terms.