2008 (7) TMI 329 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant s contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the part of the amount confirmed in the order while accepted the contention of giving deduction from the value of the taxable service - Commissioner (Appeals) has merely extracted the Order-in-Original with regard to the deduction from the taxable service. The impugned order is not a speaking order and therefore, ultimately the appeal is required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of service tax amount
2. Commissioner (Appeals) not giving finding on confirmed amount
3. Deduction from the value of taxable service
4. Reimbursable expenses not forming part of taxable service
5. Lack of evidence by assessee
6. Impugned order not a speaking order
7. Remand to Commissioner (Appeals)
8. Granting waiver of pre-deposit
9. Stay application allowed

Analysis:
1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a service tax amount of Rs. 2,19,397. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any finding on the confirmed amount in the order but accepted the deduction of Rs. 6,14,750 from the taxable service value for the financial years 2000-2004. The appellant contended that various reimbursable expenses should not be considered part of the taxable service, citing a previous Tribunal case. The appellant requested a waiver of the pre-deposit amount.

2. The learned DR supported the Original authority's findings, stating that the assessee did not present any evidence to support the relief sought for the amounts in question.

3. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions and the impugned order. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) merely reproduced the Order-in-Original regarding the deduction from the taxable service without providing a detailed explanation. As the impugned order was not a speaking order, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's prayer for a waiver of the pre-deposit amount. The stay application was granted, ensuring no recovery of the amount even after 180 days from the order's issue. The appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing detailed reasoning in orders, the need for evidence to support claims, and the possibility of remanding cases for further review when essential details are lacking in lower authorities' decisions.