2018 (3) TMI 1126 - AT - Service Tax

Supply of tangible goods service for use - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - the very crucial issues such as equipments are used by the appellant on their own, the nature of transaction such as supply of water by water tank, the SSI exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 were not considered either by the original authority or by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, on these aspects, the matter needs to be reconsidered. Time Limitation - Held that - there is suppression of fact on the part of the appellant - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order-in-appeal reducing demand for 'supply of tangible goods service for use,' imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, applicability of SSI exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST, consideration of nature of transactions like supplying water by water tanker, and limitation period for the demand.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal reducing the demand for 'supply of tangible goods service for use' and imposing a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant contended that certain equipment was not rented out, so there should be no service tax for own use. They also mentioned transactions involving supplying water by water tanker, providing ambulance services, and spreading farming knowledge, arguing these were not treatable as supply of tangible goods. Additionally, they claimed entitlement to the SSI exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST and raised the issue of limitation, asserting no suppression of facts. However, no appearance was made on behalf of the appellant during the proceedings.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the demand confirmed under the 'supply of tangible goods service for use' category.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that crucial issues such as the appellant's use of equipment, nature of transactions like supplying water by water tanker, and the applicability of SSI exemption Notification No.6/2005-ST were not adequately addressed by the lower authorities. Therefore, a remand was ordered for reconsideration of these aspects by the adjudicating authority.

Regarding the limitation period, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the mentioned aspects and issue a fresh order while ensuring the principles of natural justice are observed.

The judgment was pronounced in court on 22.2.2018, highlighting the need for a thorough reassessment of the issues raised by the appellant and the application of legal principles to reach a just decision.