2023 (11) TMI 61 - AT - Service Tax

Scope of SCN - Failure to pay the Service Tax by the due date - contravention of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - demand alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Show Cause Notice makes it clear, and admittedly, that there is no specific service alleged against the appellant, as having been rendered by it, rather, a consolidated tax liability has been worked out, which makes it indefensible. It is relevant to note the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE VERSUS BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES (P) LTD. 2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been categorically held The show cause notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. Thus, no case is made out to take a different view deviating from the view expressed in the case of M/S. T.M.P. MANOHARAN CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY 2023 (11) TMI 15 - CESTAT CHENNAI and therefore, the demand in the impugned order cannot sustain, for which reason the same is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the demand for Service Tax on taxable services provided by the appellant, the validity of the Show Cause Notice, and the sustainability of the demand confirmed in the impugned order.

Summary:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai for the period of dispute from April 2008 to March 2009. The Revenue alleged that the appellant provided taxable services falling under different categories without paying the due Service Tax. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand Service Tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice lacked specificity regarding the category of service and the nature of work. The original authority confirmed the demands, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant appealed to the Appellate Tribunal challenging the sustainability of the demand in the impugned order.

The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and focused on the key issue of whether the demand confirmed in the impugned order was sustainable in law. It was observed that the Show Cause Notice did not specify any particular service alleged against the appellant, making the tax liability indefensible. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case, the Tribunal held that vague and nonspecific allegations in the Show Cause Notice do not provide the noticee with a proper opportunity to defend themselves. Additionally, a previous decision by the Tribunal on a similar issue supported the appellant's argument.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand in the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law.