2016 (12) TMI 284 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - period April, 2005 to October, 2009 - Erection, Installation and Commissioning Services - principles of natural justice - Held that - the issue needs appreciation of factual matrix before arriving at the conclusion. In view of the above, we hold that the matter needs reconsideration by the lower authorities. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, this Court sets aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue after following the principles of natural justice - all issues kept open.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding Service Tax liability for Erection, Installation, and Commissioning Services from April 2005 to October 2009.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Service Tax Liability Issue:
The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/RKS/170/2011 dated 28.12.2011 concerning Service Tax liability for Erection, Installation, and Commissioning Services from April 2005 to October 2009. The appellant argued that the demand for Service Tax needed reconsideration due to incorrect quantification. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., indicating its relevance to the current issue. It was acknowledged that the appellants had erred in not producing certain documents before the first appellate authority, although these documents were later presented before the adjudicating authority. The appellant requested a remand for further reconsideration of the matter.

2. Documentary Evidence Issue:
The learned AR contended that the appellant had failed in their duty by not submitting the necessary documents before the first appellate authority, especially if seeking a refund. It was emphasized that all documents supporting the case should be provided by the party seeking relief. The failure to produce essential documents before the appropriate authority was highlighted as a significant procedural error.

3. Judgment and Remand Decision:
After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was observed that a proper appreciation of the factual matrix was essential before reaching a conclusion on the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by the lower authorities. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review following the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and kept all issues open for further consideration.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues raised in the appeal, including the Service Tax liability dispute, the importance of producing necessary documents, and the decision to remand the matter for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.