2015 (12) TMI 208 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - In confirmation of demand of more than ₹ 16.06 crores, in respect of the substantial portion, the submissions made by the appellants have not been considered in detail and in a proper prospective. Therefore, we are constrained to remand the matter at this stage so that the issues are considered afresh and submissions made are discussed and conclusions arrived in accordance with law. After going through the various demands that have been confirmed, we find that prima facie, the appellants did not have a case in respect of an amount of ₹ 3.6 lakhs - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Remand of the matter, non-consideration of submissions, denial of Cenvat credit, calculation errors, confirmation of demand, compliance with deposit requirement.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, delivered by Shri B.S.V. Murthy and S.K. Mohanty, Members, revolves around the decision to remand the matter rather than keeping the issue pending by granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The Tribunal found that the submissions in the case were not considered properly by the Commissioner, leading to a mechanical reproduction of the submission without a detailed analysis. For instance, the confirmation of a demand exceeding &8377;16.06 crores lacked a thorough consideration of the appellants' submissions, necessitating a remand for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.

The judgment highlights specific instances where Cenvat credit amounting to more than &8377;4.96 crores was denied due to invoices having an old address. The appellants also pointed out a calculation error where the Cenvat credit availed during a particular month was inaccurately stated, but this issue was not addressed adequately. Additionally, the Commissioner's decision to confirm a demand of over &8377;2 crores on various services was criticized for merely replicating the department's calculation without a detailed review. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of these issues to ensure a fair and lawful conclusion.

To address the deficiencies in the previous consideration of the case, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit an amount of &8377;5 lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance to the Commissioner. This deposit was deemed necessary to facilitate a fresh adjudication of all the issues involved, allowing the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal clarified that their directive for the deposit did not imply an opinion on the issues discussed, emphasizing the procedural aspect of ensuring compliance before proceeding with a new adjudication.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of a thorough examination of submissions and a proper perspective in confirming demands and addressing issues such as denial of Cenvat credit and calculation errors. The decision to remand the matter and require a deposit for fresh adjudication reflects the Tribunal's commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring a fair resolution of the case.