9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 897 - AT - Service TaxNon-speaking order - demand of service tax - suppressed/ concealed taxable value - Steamer Agent - Manpower Recruitment Agency - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The entire discussions do not even refer to the service provider and service recipient, the contract between the two and any of the issues raised by the appellants in their defences submissions. The order is just quoting the provisions of the law and clarifications issued by the Board from time to time. It does not discuss in any way the applicability of the same to the present set of facts - We are constrained to observe that the impugned order running into 31 pages is a non speaking order bereft of any reasoning, which is heart and soul of any order determining the rights of party. The matter remanded back to adjudicating authority to consider the submissions made by the Appellant and decide the issue by way of speaking order after analyzing the facts and law on the subject - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Service Tax demands on suppressed/concealed taxable value. 2. Appropriation/adjustment of amounts paid towards confirmed Service Tax. 3. Recovery of interest on confirmed Service Tax amounts. 4. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Denial of CENVAT Credit irregularly availed. 6. Adherence to the principles of natural justice and providing a speaking order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Service Tax Demands on Suppressed/Concealed Taxable Value: The Commissioner confirmed various demands of Service Tax amounting to ?35,60,733/- for services rendered as 'Steamer Agent', ?35,60,733/- for 'Manpower Recruitment Agency', and ?25,78,000/- for 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' for different periods, which were not paid due to suppression/concealment of taxable value. Additionally, a demand of ?1,01,08,946/- was confirmed for services rendered as 'Steamer Agent' for another period, along with other smaller amounts for 'Manpower Recruitment Agency' and irregularly availed CENVAT Credit. 2. Appropriation/Adjustment of Amounts Paid Towards Confirmed Service Tax: The Commissioner ordered the appropriation/adjustment of ?4,65,661/- paid by the noticee towards the confirmed Service Tax demand. 3. Recovery of Interest on Confirmed Service Tax Amounts: The Commissioner ordered the recovery of interest at the appropriate rate on the confirmed amounts under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 4. Imposition of Penalties Under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994: Penalties were imposed under Section 76 for failure to pay Service Tax, under Section 77 for failure to file prescribed returns, and under Section 78 for suppression of taxable value. The penalties included ?67,13,151/- under Section 78 for the first show cause notice and ?1,10,89,541/- under Section 78 for the second show cause notice. 5. Denial of CENVAT Credit Irregularly Availed: The Commissioner denied the CENVAT Credit amounting to ?1,08,755/- for the period from April 2003 to March 2004, confirming the demand of Service Tax for the same amount. 6. Adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice and Providing a Speaking Order: The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner, in the de novo proceedings, did not adequately consider the submissions made by the appellants. The order was found to lack detailed reasoning and analysis of the facts and law, making it a non-speaking order. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a speaking order, which is fundamental to judicial decisions, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Saheli Leasing and Industries Ltd. Conclusion and Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the submissions made by the appellant and issue a speaking order, analyzing the facts and law comprehensively. The adjudicating authority was instructed to complete the de novo proceedings within four months of receiving the Tribunal's order and to provide the appellant a reasonable opportunity to defend their case.
|
