2022 (1) TMI 1071 - AT - Service Tax

Works contract services - it is prayed that since the proceedings initiated were based upon the information from Income tax Deptt., that the verification of the requisite documents was utmost necessary - HELD THAT - Perusing the record specifically the letter which was received by Commissioner (Appeals) in his office on 27.01.2021 i.e. prior the pronouncement of the order under challenge on 17.02.2021, it is apparent that appellant did submit invoices and challans for the financial year 2013-14. The ld. Counsel has impressed upon that the challans as submitted were the challans with respect to the activity of job work services as were carried by the appellants and as were exempted under entry No.30 of Mega exemption Notification No.25/2012 - ST dated 20 June, 2012. Those documents are not been made the part of the present appeal. Neither have been provided by the Department. Hence, it is not possible to appreciate the deficiency based whereupon the Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant filed before him. It is deemed a fit case to be re-considered by Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of all relevant documents as that of invoices, job work challans, requisite ledgers etc. - the present appeal stands allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Service Tax Department's order alleging tax evasion and imposition of penalty based on income information from Income Tax Department. Appeal dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of submitted documents. Appellant's claim of submitting documents disputed by Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed challenging the Order in Appeal No.77/2021 dated 16.02.2021, which was based on an SCN served by the Service Tax Department to recover service tax amounting to ?451404/- along with interest. Penalty was also proposed. The appeal was confirmed ex-parte, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that they could not appear before the original adjudicating authority as the notice was served at the wrong address. However, they appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted all required documents. The counsel emphasized a letter received by the Commissioner's office showing submission of all invoices and challans for the financial year 2013-14.

3. The Revenue's representative contended that notices were served at the correct address provided by the appellant, and there was no denial of receiving the SCN at the mentioned address. It was argued that although the appellant appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), the requisite documents were not provided, which was crucial for verifying the information from the Income Tax Department.

4. After hearing both parties, it was noted that the appellant did submit invoices and challans for the financial year 2013-14, specifically related to job work services exempted under a particular notification. However, these documents were not part of the present appeal nor provided by the Department, leading to a lack of clarity on the basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal.

5. The Tribunal considered it necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the case in light of all relevant documents, including invoices, job work challans, and ledgers. The appellant was directed to provide these documents and any additional required within a week of appearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was instructed to adjudicate the matter within two months.

6. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) with the submission of all necessary documents for a comprehensive review and decision.