2014 (10) TMI 520 - AT - Service Tax

Mandap Keeper service - benefit of abatement of 40% in terms of notification no.12/2001-ST dated 20.12.2001 - Held that - As such the finding of the appellate authority that abatement was available only till 31.3.2004 is factually incorrect. Further, we find that though the appellant have raised the above ground of availment of notification before the Asstt. Commissioner, he has bothered not to examine the same and to find out whether the conditions of the said notification are fulfilled or not. However, in any case, we find that the said notification do not carry any conditions, as is clear from the latest notification no.8/2004-ST dated 9.7.2004 even the earlier notifications. Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification regarding abatement of service tax.
2. Failure of original adjudicating authority to consider appellant's plea.
3. Correctness of imposition of penalty and interest.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Service Tax provider under the category of Mandap Keeper, availed the benefit of abatement of 40% for payment of service tax as per notification no.12/2001-ST. A show cause notice was issued against them for short payment without specifying reasons for the demand.

2. The appellant contended during adjudication that they correctly paid duty after availing the abatement as per the notification. However, the Asstt. Commissioner disregarded this plea and confirmed the demand, penalty, and interest without considering the appellant's submission.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the notification allowing abatement was only valid until 31.3.2002, whereas the period in question was from July to September 2004. The Commissioner also mentioned unfulfilled conditions under the notification, which the appellant failed to demonstrate compliance with.

4. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the sequence of notifications from no.12/2001-ST to no.8/2004-ST and found that the abatement was available beyond 31.3.2004. It noted that the Asstt. Commissioner did not examine the appellant's claim properly and that the notifications did not impose any conditions, as evident from the latest notification no.8/2004-ST.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner for a fresh decision, instructing to consider the appellant's contention regarding the availability of various notifications relevant to the period in question. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.