2009 (4) TMI 190 - AT - Service Tax

Deductions claimed not allowed by original authority service tax demanded on gross amount - we find that the respondents have not produced the documents in support claim for deduction before the original authority. Accordingly, we are of the view that in such a circumstance, the lower appellate authority should have remanded the matter afresh for examination by the original authority, which does not appear to be the case nor he has invited the departmental representative in the present case during hearing taken up by him. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay Service Tax on gross value of services provided.
2. Disallowance of deduction claimed due to lack of substantiating records.
3. Validity of lower Appellate Authority's decision.
4. Consideration of precedential value of stay orders.
5. Requirement of remand for fresh decision by original authority.

Analysis:
The original authority in this case held the Respondents liable to pay Service Tax on the gross value of services provided and disallowed the deduction claimed due to the lack of substantiating records. However, the lower Appellate Authority later allowed the deduction claimed by the Respondents, noting that the documents were not initially produced before the original authority but were later presented before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Departmental Representative was not heard by the lower Appellate Authority, and the examination results of the averments were not included in the lower appellate authority's order.

The Department argued that the lower Appellate Authority's decision was flawed as it was based on stay orders passed by the Tribunal, which should not have precedential value. The Department also relied on a previous Tribunal order to support the claim that tax on the gross value of services should be levied without allowing the deduction. However, upon reviewing the record and the cited decision, the Tribunal found that the Respondents had not produced the necessary documents before the original authority to support their deduction claim.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that in such circumstances where the documents were not initially presented before the original authority, the lower Appellate Authority should have remanded the matter for a fresh examination. As the lower Appellate Authority did not follow this procedure and did not invite the Departmental Representative during the hearing, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision. The Respondents were granted the opportunity to produce the required documents in support of their claim before the original authority, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.