2017 (8) TMI 909 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - power of adjudicating Commissioner to remand the matter for verification - Held that - instead of verifying and quantifying the demand, the Commissioner has ordered for verification of the documentary evidence. This order made by the adjudicating Commissioner does not seem to be proper or within the provisions of law. Thus, the order passed by the Commissioner is not in order. The same requires to be remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of tax for specific periods
2. Verification of documentary evidence for deductions
3. Confirmation of demand for a specific period
4. Imposition of interest and penalty
5. Remand for denovo consideration

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner regarding the demand of tax for specific periods. The Commissioner limited the demand to the normal period of limitation and ordered verification of documentary evidence for deductions claimed by the assessee. For a subsequent period, the Commissioner confirmed and demanded a specific amount of service tax, along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty for failure to pay service tax in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found the order passed by the Commissioner to be improper and remanded the matter for reconsideration, leaving all issues open for denovo consideration.

2. The appellant, registered under the category of Consulting Engineer and Architect Services, faced allegations of not discharging service tax liability in full. After investigations and scrutiny of documents, a show cause notice was issued for demanding differential service tax for a specific period. The Order-in-Original confirmed the entire demand of service tax, along with interest and penalties. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, remanded the matter for denovo consideration, directing cooperation from both parties. In the subsequent adjudication, the Commissioner ordered verification of documentary evidence, which the Tribunal found to be improper. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

3. Another appeal filed by the department against the earlier Order-in-Original was dismissed as infructuous since the Tribunal had set aside the said order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification and quantification of the demand, indicating that the adjudicating authority must adhere to the provisions of the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring that orders are passed in accordance with legal principles and precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the actions taken by the authorities, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for denovo consideration, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in tax matters.