2018 (6) TMI 1148 - AT - Service Tax

Goods Transport Operator Service - reverse charge mechanism - Held that - From the very beginning appellant have been claiming that the computation of demand is erroneous and filling inflected. From the records, primafacie, we finds force in the argument of the appellants, therefore, the accepting the correct liability pertaining to the Panoli Unit, the matter made to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, in the interest of justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original for recovery of Service Tax amounting to ? 89,05,450. Dispute over liability for Goods Transport Operator Service Tax for Panoli Unit during 1997-1998 & 1998-1999. Contentions on total expenditure towards Transport Service, balance sheet figures, and liability for Panoli Unit. Claim of demand being barred by limitation. Request for remand to Adjudicating Authority for re-consideration of evidence and liability.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No. 01/ST/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs – Surat-II. The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for the recovery of Service Tax amounting to ? 89,05,450 for receiving Goods Transport Operator Service Tax during 1997-1998 & 1998-1999. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant's representative argued that the department had considered the total expenditure towards Transport Service reflected in the balance sheet, which included amounts from all units of the Appellant Company, including the Panoli Unit. Despite submitting the amount specifically for the Panoli Unit, it was allegedly ignored. The representative contended that Service Tax was paid for other units in Mumbai and that other expenses in the balance sheet were incorrectly included in the liability for the Panoli Unit. Additionally, it was claimed that the entire demand was time-barred. The representative requested a remand to the Adjudicating Authority for a re-evaluation of the evidence related to the demand of Service Tax by other units and the liability of the Panoli Unit.

The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the demand. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the computation of the demand, noting that the figures for Transport Service were taken from the balance sheet and included transport received by other units in Mumbai, not just the Panoli Unit. Acknowledging the appellant's argument on the erroneous computation of demand, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to determine the correct liability specifically related to the Panoli Unit in the interest of justice. All issues were kept open, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.