2018 (7) TMI 261 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax alongwith equal amount of penalty u/s 78 - case of appellant is that the demand raised is already paid, which has not been considered while raising demand - Held that - All the supporting documents were filed before the Adjudicating Authority and have also been filed before me, but the same were not filed before the lower appellate authority. Therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the lower appellate authority to consider the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand of service tax and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is justified?
2. Whether the lower appellate authority considered all relevant documents and submissions before passing the order?

Issue 1: The judgment revolves around the demand of service tax and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to ?6,53,320/- along with an equal amount of penalty. The impugned order highlighted discrepancies in the adjudicating authority's decision, pointing out that the abatement was allowed without proper findings, which was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the demand had already been paid, exemptions for consignments below ?750 each were not considered, and the tax paid by the transporter was overlooked. The Tribunal found that all supporting documents were submitted before the Adjudicating Authority and before them but were not presented before the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision after considering all submissions and documents.

Issue 2: The second issue pertains to whether the lower appellate authority considered all relevant documents and submissions before passing the order. The Tribunal noted that although all supporting documents were filed before the Adjudicating Authority and before them, these were not presented before the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal directed a remand to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of considering all grounds of appeal and supporting documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the appellant and the documents produced in support of their case, ensuring a comprehensive review in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the demand of service tax and penalty, highlighting discrepancies in the adjudicating authority's decision-making process and the need for a thorough consideration of all documents and submissions by the lower appellate authority. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive review based on all available evidence and legal provisions.