2017 (10) TMI 555 - AT - Service Tax

Short payment of service tax - case of appellant is that the quantification in this case has not been properly done by the authorities - Held that - figures furnished by the appellant now were not the part of the records available with the authorities below, which is evident from the fact that there is no such discussion about such reconciliation statement either in the adjudication or in the impugned order - the matter should go back to the original authority for verification of the reconciliation statement to be furnished by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Service tax demand confirmation based on ST-3 returns figures, quantification of demand, consideration of cenvat credit, invocation of extended period of limitation, verification of reconciliation statement, remand to original authority for fresh adjudication order.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order confirming service tax demand against the appellant for the period from May 2005 to July 2008. The demand was quantified based on figures from ST-3 returns compared to tax paid through challans. The appellant argued that the quantification was improper as it did not consider cenvat credit shown in the returns. The appellant also contended that since it regularly filed ST-3 returns, the extended period of limitation should not apply. The respondent supported the findings in the impugned order.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted that the reconciliation statement submitted by the appellant during the hearing was not part of the records available to the authorities below. As there was no discussion or consideration of this statement in the adjudication or impugned order, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for verification of the reconciliation statement and to determine if suppression or misstatement could justify invoking the extended period of limitation to confirm the demand.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh adjudication order in accordance with the observations made. The appellant was to be granted an opportunity for a personal hearing before a new decision was reached. The appeal and miscellaneous application were disposed of, with the operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court.