2017 (9) TMI 1069 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - service of air transport of passengers - natural justice - Held that - it is clear that the adjudicating authority has not taken enough care to examine thoroughly all the submissions raised before him in relation to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has not made the detailed analyses to convincingly arrived the liability of tax to be recovered from M/s Japan International Airlines. CENVAT credit - input services - Held that - the adjudicating authority has not examined the plea of the assessee that subject input services are related to the output services . When it is so, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming recoveries of Cenvat credit and service tax, imposition of penalties, and related appeals by both parties.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Japan Airlines International, was engaged in providing air transport services. The Department of Service Tax conducted an audit and found discrepancies, including non-compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, wrongly availed service tax credits, non-payment of service tax on excess baggage charges, and other issues.

2. The department issued a show cause notice demanding recovery of Cenvat credit, service tax, and penalties. The Order-in-Original confirmed these demands and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act and Cenvat Credit Rules.

3. The appellant contested the demands and penalties, arguing that the allegations were not sustainable, input services were related to their business, proceedings lacked analysis of facts and relevant law, and suppression of facts was not proven. They also challenged the imposition of interest and penalties.

4. The revenue appealed, claiming that the penalties imposed were insufficient and failed to discuss issues like the extended period and mandatory penalties under the Finance Act and Cenvat Credit Rules.

5. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not thoroughly examine all submissions and failed to analyze the nexus between input and output services. The matter was remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity for personal hearing and submission of documents.

6. The Tribunal allowed both appeals by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and directing a fresh adjudication by the Original Adjudicating Authority.

7. The Revenue's appeal, previously dismissed by the Tribunal, was reinstated following a decision by the Delhi High Court, leading to its consideration by the CESTAT.

8. The judgment emphasized the importance of a detailed analysis and thorough examination of submissions before arriving at a decision on tax liabilities and penalties, highlighting the need for a fair and comprehensive adjudication process.