2019 (2) TMI 386 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of the service tax with interest and penalty - Notification Nos.45/2010-ST dated 20.7.2010 and 11/2010-ST dated 27.2.2010 - Held that - the services rendered to other parties, the learned Advocate for the appellant-assessee disputes the same. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is prudent and appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issues afresh taking into consideration the admissibility of Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20.7.2010 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Notification No.11/2010-ST dated 27.2.2010 to the appellant In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is prudent and appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issues afresh taking into consideration the admissibility of Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20.7.2010 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Notification No.11/2010-ST dated 27.2.2010 to the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed against order-in-original, demand of service tax, eligibility of retrospective exemption from payment of service tax, consideration of Notification Nos. 45/2010-ST and 11/2010-ST, remand to adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III. The appellant, providing taxable services under the category of erection, commissioning, or installation service to MSEB and others during 2005-06 to 2009-10, faced demand notices for recovery of service tax, interest, and penalty. The learned Commissioner confirmed a demand of ?6,35,71,242 against the appellant, who appealed against it. The Revenue also appealed as a portion of the demand was dropped by the Commissioner.

2. The appellant's representative contended that a significant part of the demand was related to services for transmission of electricity to MSEDCL, and a small amount was for services to private parties. The appellant raised the issue of eligibility for retrospective exemption from service tax payment under Notification Nos. 45/2010-ST and 11/2010-ST, which had not been raised before the adjudicating authority. The appellant requested a remand to examine this claim.

3. The Revenue's representative supported the findings of the Commissioner and argued that since the appellant did not raise the issue of eligibility for the mentioned notifications earlier, it could not be considered. The Tribunal noted the appellant's claim that most services provided during the relevant period were related to transmission of electricity to MSEDCL, covered by the said notifications. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination considering the applicability of the notifications to the appellant's case. All issues were kept open for reconsideration.

4. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, and miscellaneous applications and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the retrospective exemption notifications and the need for a re-examination by the adjudicating authority to determine the applicability of the exemptions to the appellant's services.

(Pronounced in court)