2016 (11) TMI 648 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - CHA services - non-inclusion of certain expenditures amounting to ₹ 94,05,527/- in the gross taxable value - Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - ld. Commissioner at Para 32 of the impugned order has observed that there was no time for verification of the data submitted by the appellant as the review notice ought to be decided on or before 10.02.2010 and proceeded to adjudicate the Notice issued by him in exercise of power vested under Sec. 84 of Finance Act,1994. In these circumstances, as both sides fairly agree, in the interest of justice, it would be prudent to remit the case to the ld. Commissioner to decide the issues afresh, after considering all the evidences on record and the evidences that would be filed by the appellant before him. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the appellant to explain their case. All issues are kept open - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding service tax on expenditures incurred by Custom House Agents.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in providing taxable services as Custom House Agents, were issued a demand notice for recovery of service tax alleging non-inclusion of certain expenditures in the gross taxable value. The demand proceeding was initially dropped, but the Commissioner later confirmed the demand, directed interest recovery, and imposed a penalty. The appeal challenged this decision.

The appellant argued that the expenditures were incurred on behalf of customers and hence should not be part of the taxable value. Despite submitting documents post personal hearing to support their claim, the Commissioner passed the order without examining the evidence, citing time constraints due to a review notice deadline. The appellant requested a remand for a fresh decision.

The Authorized Representative for the respondent agreed that the matter should be remanded for a reevaluation of the evidence. The Tribunal noted the Commissioner's failure to consider the evidence properly due to time constraints and decided to remit the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. Both parties' arguments were considered, and the appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, keeping all issues open for reconsideration.