2016 (11) TMI 1578 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax liability confirmed by lower authority in adjudication - Held that - Appellant has not really indicated as to the exact nature of grievance that he has against the impugned order. It will be in the fitness of things that appellant awaits recomputation of tax liability and penalty as directed by Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Summary

Issues: Alleged non-payment of service tax liability and penalty recomputation.

Alleged non-payment of service tax liability:
The appeal pertains to the alleged non-payment of service tax liability amounting to ?7,57,262 for the period between April 2012 to September 2012. The lower authority confirmed this liability, leading to an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order directed that in cases of services provided by supplying manpower, the service provider is liable for 25% of the service tax, with the remaining 75% to be paid by the service recipient. The Commissioner further ordered a re-computation by the lower authorities. The appellant challenged this order before the forum, but no representation was made by the appellant during the proceedings.

Penalty Recomputation:
Regarding penalty under Section 78(1) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) also directed a recomputation based on the revised service tax liability as determined by the lower authority. The Department argued that the appeal was premature as the impugned order clearly mandated a re-computation of the tax liability and penalty in line with Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012. The Member (Technical) agreed with the Department's argument, emphasizing that the appellant had not specified the exact nature of their grievance against the impugned order. The Member suggested that the appellant should await the recomputation of tax liability and penalty as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and then follow the normal process of appellate remedy if dissatisfied. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit at that stage.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the alleged non-payment of service tax liability and the recomputation of penalties as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's failure to present any specific grievances and the clear directions provided in the impugned order led to the dismissal of the appeal for being premature and devoid of merit.