2015 (8) TMI 1190 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Held that - Appellant had neither filed reply to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority in spite of sufficient opportunities had been accorded to them. The claim of the appellant before us is that the confirmation of demand for receiving the taxable value against services rendered to M/s. SEPCO is incorrect as during the relevant period they have already paid appropriate service tax against receipt of the taxable value and disclosed in their periodical ST-3 returns filed with the jurisdictional Superintendent of Service Tax. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the appellant be given a fair chance to establish the said claim. Accordingly the offer to deposit ₹ 13.50 Lakhs, at this stage, seems to be reasonable. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of asessee.

Summary

Issues: Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, penalty imposed under Section 78 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to &8377; 1.79 Crores and penalties imposed under Sections 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, argued that they had already discharged the Service Tax for the services provided during the period in question to a specific corporation. The Chartered Accountant contended that the demand against them was unjust as they had disclosed the information and paid the necessary taxes in their ST returns. However, it was noted that the applicant failed to respond to the show cause notice or attend personal hearings with the adjudicating authority previously. The Chartered Accountant offered to deposit &8377; 13.50 Lakhs and requested a remand to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the matter.

2. The Revenue's representative opposed the applicant's claims and supported the findings of the Commissioner. The Revenue highlighted that the applicant did not reply to the show cause notice or participate in hearings before the adjudicating authority. Despite this, the Revenue did not object to remanding the case for further review.

3. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and decided to dispose of the appeal without the need for pre-deposit. It was observed that the appellant had not responded to the show cause notice or attended personal hearings despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's assertion that they had already paid the appropriate service tax and disclosed it in their returns. To ensure fairness, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit &8377; 13.50 Lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the matter. The appellant was permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice and provide evidence to support their claims. The Tribunal emphasized granting a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case. The appeal was allowed by remand, and the stay petition was disposed of.