2010 (6) TMI 98 - HC - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer Service- The assessee filed a refund claim which was under protest. A show-cause notice was issued by rejecting the refund claim. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim. Tribunal reject the claim. Held that- Tribunal order without dealing with core issue disposed appeal on the ground that impugned issue covered by precedent decision. Duty cast on Tribunal to consider grounds urged by parties. Tribunal Committed error is not considerable grounds urged. Impugned order not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging Tribunal's order, Taxability of services under Consulting Engineer Service, Correctness of Tribunal's decision, Non-consideration of grounds by Tribunal, Remittance of matter to Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court challenged the Tribunal's order in response to a refund claim filed by the respondent, who provided training services on operating machines. The appellant contended that the respondent should fall under the taxable category of "Consulting Engineering Service." The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand made in a show-cause notice, which was later set aside by the Commissioners (Appeals). The revenue then appealed to the CESTAT, which rejected the appeal citing a previous case. The High Court admitted the appeal and found that the Tribunal had not considered the core issue of the taxability of the respondent's services. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing that all contentions of both parties should be open for argument before the Tribunal.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant, which is a requirement under Section 35D of the Central Excise Act. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal must adjudicate on the grounds urged by the parties. As the Tribunal did not consider the appellant's grounds, the High Court remitted the matter back to the CESTAT for a fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a specified timeframe. The High Court stressed the need for a thorough consideration of the matter on merits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred in not addressing the crucial issue of the taxability of the respondent's services, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's order. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adjudicating on all grounds raised by the parties and disposing of the appeal in a timely manner.