2018 (8) TMI 1018 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - CENVAT Credit - input services - Health Insurance/Medical Insurance of Employees - Held that - Undoubtedly the adjudicating authority has passed a speaking order after following judicial precedents which have not been distinguished by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order - proper opportunity has not been provided in terms of Natural Justice to the assessee to plead its case which fact has not been disputed by the learned DR and by virtue of this alone, the impugned order becomes a non-speaking order. The matter should be re-examined by the lower appellate authority after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit on input services without nexus to output services.
2. Disallowance of cenvat credit on Health Insurance/Medical Insurance of Employees.
3. Disallowance of cenvat credit on construction services.
4. Appeal against the decision of the adjudicating authority.
5. Lack of opportunity for the assessee to present its case before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of cenvat credit without nexus to output services
The appellant, a service provider, availed cenvat credit on various input services for the period under dispute. The Revenue contended that there was no nexus between the cenvat credit availed and the output services provided, which led to the proposal of disallowance. However, the adjudicating authority, after considering explanations and arguments, concluded that the cenvat credit availed was proper and dropped the proceedings initiated by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Disallowance of cenvat credit on Health Insurance/Medical Insurance of Employees
The Revenue filed an appeal contending that the cenvat credit allowed on Health Insurance/Medical Insurance of Employees was incorrect as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading the assessee to appeal before the forum due to serious grievances.

Issue 3: Disallowance of cenvat credit on construction services
The Revenue also contested the cenvat credit allowed on construction services, arguing that the case-law relied upon by the adjudicating authority was not correct. This issue was part of the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 4: Appeal against the decision of the adjudicating authority
The Revenue's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on various contentions regarding the correctness of cenvat credit allowed on specific input services. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favor of the Revenue, leading to the assessee's appeal before the forum.

Issue 5: Lack of opportunity for the assessee to present its case
During the proceedings, the advocate for the assessee contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide an opportunity for the assessee to present its case adequately. The forum observed that the adjudicating authority had passed a speaking order following judicial precedents, but the lack of opportunity for the assessee made the impugned order non-speaking. The forum remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) for a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, emphasizing the importance of natural justice.

In conclusion, the forum set aside the impugned order and allowed the matter for statistical purposes, highlighting the significance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

← Previous Next →