2014 (7) TMI 453 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Services - services received at their Kharagpur Unit, they have discharged the service tax at Pune - Held that - whatever services received from goods transport agency at their Kharagpur Unit, appellant have discharged the service tax at Pune. They have placed a Chartered Accountant s certificate in support of such claim which the Ld. Commissioner has not considered while arriving at the conclusion that the payment at Pune for liability of Kharagpur Unit is not supported by proper evidences. Now, the appellants have produced the letter from the Superintendent , Service Tax Pune-II Commissionerate whereby the Range Superintendent mentions that the Service Tax for the period 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 of Kharagpur Unit has been discharged at Pune - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties under Sections 78 and 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Service Tax Liability Discharge at Pune:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties, claiming they discharged service tax liability for goods transport agency (GTA) services at their Kharagpur unit by paying at their Pune unit during 2005-2008. The appellant provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate and a letter certifying payment at Pune. However, the adjudicating authority did not accept these documents as sufficient evidence due to lack of supporting records. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to provide complete declarations regarding GTA service providers not availing certain benefits, and emphasized the need for the appellant to register and pay service tax at the Kharagpur unit. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the documents provided and decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for further scrutiny and verification.

2. Verification of Payment Location and Documents:
The Tribunal identified the key issue as the discharge of service tax liability at the Kharagpur unit by paying at the Pune unit for GTA services. While the appellant presented additional documents, including a letter from the Superintendent, Service Tax Pune-II Commissionerate, confirming payment at Pune, the Revenue contested the authenticity and clarity of this letter. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the documents and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. Both parties were granted the opportunity to present further evidence, and the impugned order was set aside for a fresh decision, ensuring a fair hearing and consideration of all aspects.

3. Remand for Reconsideration:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review. The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting claims and documents presented by the appellant and the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of verifying the payment location and supporting evidence. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and instructed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the case, allowing both parties to submit additional evidence. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the service tax liability issue at hand.