2018 (3) TMI 353 - AT - Service Tax

Works contract Service - Erection, commissioning and installation Service - transportation of goods by road - Held that - the adjudicating authority has not rendered a clear finding in the order-in-original and has thus hamstrung the first appellate authority - a fresh consideration of the original notice would require that the demand for subsequent period should also be considered along with. Matter remanded to the original authority for disposal together with the earlier notice.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the original notice and subsequent demand.
2. Dispute related to 'transportation of goods by road' service.
3. Denial of benefit under notification No.1/06.
4. Clarity in findings by the adjudicating authority.
5. Consideration of demands for subsequent periods.
6. Decision on remand and disposal of the matter.

Analysis:
1. The proceedings in this case stem from a statement-cum-notice dated 8th October 2012 under section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, linked to a show cause notice dated 16th March 2012. The original notice covered three services, including 'works contract', 'erection, commissioning or installation', and 'transport of goods by road'. However, the impugned notice limited the demand to 'erection, commissioning and installation' and 'transportation of goods by road'. The tax liability was confirmed by the original authority and affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Nagpur, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant did not contest the dispute regarding the 'transportation of goods by road' service. The matter was remanded to the original authority due to the denial of benefits under notification No.1/06. The appellant argued that the conditions of the notification could be verified through returns and invoices, and the Commissioner had not properly examined the issue. The original authority's findings on 'composite' contracts being 'works contract service' differed from the limited demand in the show cause notice, raising concerns.

3. The Authorized Representative acknowledged the lack of clarity in the adjudicating authority's findings, which affected the first appellate authority's decision. It was suggested that a fresh consideration of the original notice should also include demands for subsequent periods. Both parties and the Tribunal agreed that addressing the demands collectively was more appropriate than handling them piecemeal, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for comprehensive disposal.

4. The Tribunal, in its decision, emphasized the need for a holistic review of the matter, including the earlier notice, to ensure a fair and thorough assessment. By remanding the case to the original authority, the Tribunal aimed to facilitate a comprehensive examination of the issues raised, particularly regarding the interpretation of the original notice and the subsequent demands. The appeal was disposed of based on the above terms, highlighting the importance of a detailed and coherent adjudication process.

(Dictated in Court)