2020 (5) TMI 172 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - wrong availment of benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - recovery of short paid duty alongwith interest and penalty - period from April 2006 to March 2008 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has not discussed the individual contracts, the copies of which now submitted by the Ld. Advocate, in confirming the demand against the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to analyse each and every contract under which Commercial or Industrial Construction Service has been rendered during the relevant period and the admissibility of the quantum of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is correct or not.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula, alleging that the appellant had failed to correctly discharge service tax and wrongly availed the benefit of a specific notification. The appellant contended that the demand was confirmed without verifying individual contracts, which, if considered, would show no short payment of service tax. The appellant requested a remand to analyze the contracts. The Revenue supported the Commissioner's findings but had no objection to remanding the matter. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not examine the individual contracts before confirming the demand. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to analyze each contract and determine the admissibility of abatement under the relevant notification. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.