2016 (3) TMI 163 - AT - Service Tax

Reversion of Adjudication order - Overall aspects of the execution of work not look into - Held that the order of quasi-judicial Adjudicating Authority should be based on material facts and tested by evidence to make application of law thereto. As, such a process not being followed, order of both the authorities do not get approval of law. Therefore, the matter is liable to be send back to the Adjudication authority for settling the material facts examining the work order/contract document and testing any of such facts with evidence to apply law.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against reversal of Adjudication order without proper evidence.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the Revenue appealed against the reversal of the Adjudication order by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the principal ground that the services mentioned were not supported by evidence. The Revenue argued that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) acted unreasonably without considering the overall execution of the work and based the reversal on an erroneous belief. The Respondent supported the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's proposition was correct when considering the findings of the Adjudicating authority on different items of service. It was emphasized that the order of the Adjudicating authority should be based on material facts and evidence to apply the law correctly. Since this process was not followed, the Tribunal directed the matter to be sent back to the Adjudication authority for a thorough examination of the work orders/contract documents and testing the facts with evidence to apply the law properly.

The Tribunal instructed the Appellant to provide copies of the work orders/contracts for each work mentioned in the appellate order for examination by the Adjudicating authority. The Appellant was directed not to unreasonably seek adjournments and to provide all details of materials and services used in completing the work. The Adjudicating authority was tasked with examining the goods and services used and passing a reasoned order within three months. The Appellant was required to make an application to the Adjudicating authority within a month of receiving the order to schedule a hearing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a previous direction for a thorough examination based on documentary evidence in a prior order and emphasized that the Adjudicating authority should pay attention to this direction and consider all material on record when re-adjudicating the matter.