2014 (7) TMI 789 - AT - Service Tax

Revision of an order passed after remand back of the order by the Commissioner (appeal) to the adjudicating authority - Valuation - Interior Decorator s Service - abatement of cost of materials from the gross value - Notification No. 12/2003-S.T - appellate authority held that the assessee should adduce evidence in this behalf to the original authority so that the said authority could requantify the demand of service tax - Held that - Order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged by the department. The appellate Commissioner clearly found a case in favour of the assessee and accordingly acceded to their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. subject, of course, to proof of compliance with the conditions attached thereto. - The department had no grievance against this view. - It was this view which was translated into action by the Addl. Commissioner by requantifying the demand of Service Tax. By taking up the Addl. Commissioner s order for revision under Section 84 of the Act, the learned Commissioner was virtually interfering with the Appellate Commissioner s decision which had, by then, attained finality for want of challenge. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal condonation, Stay application for adjudged dues, Dispute over service tax liability, Remand order by Commissioner (Appeals), Revisionary order of Commissioner

In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, where a delay of 8 days was involved. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, allowed the COD application upon finding a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Subsequently, the stay application seeking waiver and stay in respect of the adjudged dues was considered. The Tribunal, after dispensing with pre-deposit, decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.

Moving on to the main issue, the appellant had provided "Interior Decorator's Service" to clients from April 2001 to December 2004 without paying service tax or filing returns. A show-cause notice was issued for recovery of service tax amounting to &8377; 14,31,111/- and imposing penalties. The dispute was adjudicated, and the original authority confirmed the entire demand of service tax with interest and penalties. The matter was appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the tax liability but allowed abatement of the cost of materials from the gross value. The appellate authority directed the assessee to provide evidence to the original authority for requantifying the demand. The matter was remanded to the original authority, who subsequently affirmed a demand of &8377; 5,24,166/- with interest and penalties. The Commissioner revised the order, affirming the demand and ordering recovery of interest, which was challenged in the present appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the department did not challenge the order passed by the appellate Commissioner in favor of the assessee. The appellate Commissioner had granted the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. to the assessee, subject to compliance with conditions. The Tribunal found the appellate Commissioner's decision well-reasoned based on the notification terms, a Board Circular, and legal precedents. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's revisionary order under Section 84 of the Act as an interference with the final decision of the appellate Commissioner. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the stay application and pronounced the judgment in open court, highlighting the importance of upholding the decisions made at different levels of adjudication and discouraging unwarranted interference in finalized decisions.