2016 (5) TMI 1055 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of SCN and adjudication order - Held that - as rightly pointed out by the CESTAT, the Department itself is unclear whether the service performed by the Respondent was management maintenance or repair service or Erection, Installation and Commissioning Services . This vagueness goes to root of the matter. Therefore, the court concurs with the CESTAT that the SCN as well as the Adjudication Order are vague as to the taxable service performed by the Respondent and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for determination by the Court. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
3. Vagueness in Show Cause Notice (SCN) and Adjudication Order
4. Determination of taxable service performed by the Respondent

Analysis:
1. *Delay in filing the appeal:* The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of accordingly.

2. *Appeal against the order of CESTAT:* The Department appealed against the CESTAT's order dated 16th June, 2015, which allowed the Respondent's appeal against the Order-in Original dated 18th January, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication). The Court, after hearing the counsel for the Appellant and reviewing the relevant documents, concurred with CESTAT that the SCN and the Adjudication Order were vague regarding the taxable service performed by the Respondent. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law for determination.

3. *Vagueness in SCN and Adjudication Order:* The Court noted that the Department itself was unclear about whether the service performed by the Respondent fell under "management maintenance or repair service" or "Erection, Installation and Commissioning Services." This lack of clarity was deemed crucial, and the Court dismissed the Department's argument that the SCN and Adjudication Order were not vague. The Court distinguished a previous case cited by the Department's counsel based on factual differences.

4. *Determination of taxable service:* The Court emphasized the importance of clarity in identifying the specific taxable service performed by the Respondent. Due to the ambiguity in the documentation and the Department's own uncertainty, the Court dismissed the appeal and the pending application.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of clarity in legal documents, particularly in determining taxable services, and emphasized the need for specificity to avoid confusion and ensure a fair legal process.