2020 (4) TMI 242 - AT - Service Tax

Export of services - services were rendered to a foreign company and the receipts were in foreign currency - services rendered post November 2011 - demand of service tax - HELD THAT - Appellant now claim to have documents to show that remittances in respect of all these services were received by them in fully convertible foreign currency. Appellant fairly admits that they were not able to produce these documents before the adjudicating authority. Thus, the Ld. Adjudicating authority must have an opportunity to consider all the evidence which the appellant now claims to possess and determine the service tax liability and penalties if any. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority without passing any remarks on the merits of the case, with a direction to give the appellant reasonable opportunity for being heard and presenting documents in their support - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against service tax demand, imposition of penalties, dispute over tax liability post November 2011, lack of documentation, remand to adjudicating authority for re-determination.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against the same impugned order, one by the appellant assessee and the other by the Director of the appellant firm against a personal penalty. The appellants were providing online publishing assistance and conducting conferences, registered under specific service categories. The Revenue alleged taxable services provision from 2010-11 onwards, issuing show cause notices for service tax demands under various heads, interest, and penalties for non-compliance with registration and filing requirements. The adjudicating authority confirmed most demands and imposed penalties, including a personal penalty on the Director.

The appellant disputed the tax liability post November 2011, claiming services were exported to an overseas client, but lacked documentation during the initial hearing. They later asserted the ability to produce necessary documents showing receipt of consideration in foreign exchange for services rendered post November 2011. The adjudicating authority confirmed demands for the entire period due to the initial lack of evidence.

During the appeal, the appellant now presented the required documents to support their claim of services being provided to a foreign client post November 2011. The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence, acknowledging the lack of documentation previously provided. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the evidence presented by the appellant, allowing for a re-determination of the service tax liability and penalties, if applicable. The Tribunal emphasized providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence before a new decision is made.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh determination based on the newly submitted documents and evidence, ensuring a fair assessment of the service tax liability and penalties in light of the claimed export of services post November 2011.