2018 (12) TMI 616 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - Classification of services - supply of tangible goods service or GTA Service? - Held that - The request of the appellant is to allow them to place evidences to show that the services were rendered in Navi Mumbai SEZ area and also the services provided by them are classifiable under port services and not under supply of tangible goods service; the Revenue s contention is that the Ld. Commissioner following the precedent which has been subsequently overruled by the higher forum, dropped the demands - the matters need to be remanded to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against common order-in-original regarding service tax on construction services and GTA services.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals filed against a common order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise & Service Tax. The appellant provided construction services for the Government and Public Sector Undertakings, and show cause notices were issued alleging non-payment of appropriate service tax. The total demand confirmed was ?7,28,76,135 with penalties. The appellant disputed the classification of services under the category of supply of tangible goods, claiming they should be classified under port services. The Revenue also appealed challenging the setting aside of the demand related to service tax on GTA services during the relevant period.

The appellant argued that the services were rendered in the SEZ area, specifically at "Dronagiri," not "Ulwe" as erroneously observed by the Commissioner. They also contended that the goods supplied to SEZ were incorrectly charged with service tax despite providing necessary evidence. The appellant requested an opportunity to present evidence supporting their classification under port services. On the other hand, the Revenue claimed that the Commissioner erred in setting aside the demand for service tax on GTA services based on principles later overruled by a higher forum. They requested a remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the settled legal principles.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the issues raised needed further examination and evidentiary consideration. The adjudicating authority had confirmed part of the demands but set aside the remaining amount, leading to appeals from both parties. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the issues raised, considering the evidence on record and any new evidence that may be presented during the proceedings. The impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed by way of remand, keeping all issues open for further determination.