2018 (10) TMI 30 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - case of Revenue is that that the appellant has miserably been non cooperative since the issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice - Held that - The Adjudicating Authority had no option but to pass the impugned order in the absence of relevant documents. However, those documents are prayed to be brought on record. It is also observed that the calculation sheet for VCES is also based on the data as might be available in the documents as prayed for. In the given circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice, otherwise also will not be prejudicial to the interest of the department that these documents be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority below. Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority below to re-adjudicate confining to the documents as mentioned in the application for additional evidence as to whether these documents are sufficient to negate the entire part of demand of the impugned Show Cause Notice or not - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjudication of a Show Cause Notice regarding tax liability for Commercial or Industrial Construction services.
2. Appeal against the Order confirming the demand after deduction under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Service (VCES), 2013.
3. Allegation of non-cooperation by the appellant during the proceedings.
4. Request for setting aside the Order and allowing the Appeal based on VCES declaration.
5. Consideration of additional evidence application and grounds for re-adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority.
6. Remand of the matter for re-adjudication based on the availability of relevant documents.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the adjudication of a Show Cause Notice alleging non-payment of tax for Commercial or Industrial Construction services by the appellant for the period from April 2008 to March 2012. The demand was confirmed after deduction under VCES, 2013.

2. The appellant contended that the demand included non-commercial construction activities and highlighted the amount deposited under VCES. The appellant sought to set aside the Order and have the Appeal allowed based on the VCES declaration.

3. The Department argued that the appellant was non-cooperative throughout the proceedings, failing to provide necessary documents and not appearing before the Adjudicating Authority despite multiple opportunities for a personal hearing.

4. The Adjudicating Authority noted the lack of documentary evidence provided by the appellant to support the exemption claimed from the service tax liability. The Authority emphasized that the appellant mis-declared facts and failed to provide documentary evidence for claiming exemption.

5. The Tribunal considered an application for additional evidence and additional grounds, directing the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the matter based on the availability of relevant documents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the documents for a just decision.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication within three months, instructing the appellant to cooperate with the Department during the process. The Appeal was allowed by way of remand for further consideration based on the additional evidence.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for re-adjudication based on the availability of relevant documents and cooperation from the appellant.