2014 (7) TMI 795 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of differential duty - Service provided before 10.09.2004 and payment for service received after 10.09.2004 - Held that - Certificates from the service recipients now produced before the bench were not produced before the lower authorities. As the issue relates only to the period when the services were provided and the period when consideration of the services was received - Therefore, In the interest of justice, the matter is required to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. Appellant should furnish all the required documents to the adjudicating authority to establish that periods when services were provided, were before the period when their activities were not liable to service tax - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential service tax demand for services provided before 10.09.2004 but payment received after.
2. Evidence of services provided before 10.09.2004.
3. Remand to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the differential service tax demanded, arguing that the services were provided before 10.09.2004, when they became taxable, but payments were received after that date. The appellant presented certificates from clients to support this claim. The argument was that service tax on plastering was applicable only from 16.06.2005, while the work had been completed earlier. The revenue, represented by Shri G.P. Thomas, contended that no evidence was provided to establish that services were indeed provided before the specified date, and all payments received in the subsequent fiscal year included amounts related to pre-10.09.2004 services.

2. After hearing both parties and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's main contention was regarding the period for which the service tax was demanded, emphasizing that it pertained to a time when the services provided were not yet taxable. The Tribunal observed that the certificates presented by the appellant were not submitted to the lower authorities during the initial proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was deemed necessary to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide all necessary documents to establish that the services were rendered before the taxable period, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case during the fresh adjudication process. Additionally, the Tribunal specified that the appellant would not seek a refund of the amount already deposited in the proceedings.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further examination and decision. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the court, signaling the need for a detailed reconsideration of the matter based on the evidence to be presented by the appellant before a final determination could be made.