2015 (7) TMI 887 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of Tribunal s order - Order of remanding the matter back - onsite services rendered directly at the customers premises abroad - Held that - If the issues which are vital and for the adjudication have not been examined at all by the Adjudicating Authority, then its order can be said to be prima facie erroneous. That would have to be demonstrated by the party applying for Tribunal s intervention in appellate jurisdiction. If the appellant makes out a case for remand and in this case in the alternative, then, possibly we could have understood the Tribunal s order of remand or remittance back to the Adjudicating Authority. - specific issue necessitating a remand. Merely observing that the issues considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 have not been examined at all by the Adjudicating Authority would mean a blanket and complete remand of the original case. All this, in revenue matters, ought to be avoided. It is in the interest of the public that matters concerning public revenue attain finality and expeditiously. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this appeal raises a substantial question of law - Matter remanded back for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging service tax liability on onsite services provided abroad.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue contested the order by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) concerning service tax liability on onsite services provided abroad.
2. The Assessee argued that services provided fell under Information and Technology Software Services, claiming exemption from service tax due to services rendered outside India.
3. The Revenue contended that onsite services provided abroad by related companies of the Assessee were subject to service tax in India under reverse charge mechanism.
4. The Tribunal, after considering arguments and relevant provisions, found that subjecting transactions to service tax in India was not warranted based on the agreement between the Assessee and foreign companies.
5. Despite finding in favor of the Assessee, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority citing unexamined issues.
6. The Tribunal's decision to remand was questioned as neither party sought a remand, and both intended to argue based on existing records without introducing new material.
7. The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the correctness of remanding the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.
8. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, directing a fresh consideration of the appeal by the Tribunal without permitting new material and emphasizing expeditious resolution in revenue matters.
9. Both parties were instructed to argue based on existing records, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal afresh without being influenced by previous observations.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments presented, Tribunal's decision, High Court's ruling, and instructions for the fresh consideration of the appeal.