2012 (7) TMI 350 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Demand the differential amount of service tax from the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not included the value of the gross amount received by him and as declared in the service tax returns - claim of the assessee that the amount attributable to the sale of food and beverages if entirely taken out from the total consideration received, then he is not liable to pay any amount as he has already discharged the entire service tax liability Held that - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amount; Appeal disposal based on narrow compass issue; Differential service tax demand due to non-inclusion of gross amount received; Claim of exclusion of food and beverages sale amount; Remittal of matter to adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of a service tax amount of Rs. 20,00,212/- along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that the issue at hand could be resolved within a narrow compass, and therefore, decided to allow the stay petition and proceed with the appeal for disposal. The crux of the matter revolved around a show cause notice demanding a differential service tax amount from the appellant, alleging non-inclusion of the gross amount received by them as declared in the service tax returns.

Upon considering the submissions from both parties, the Tribunal observed that the appellant's defense regarding the exclusion of the sale amount related to food and beverages had not been adequately raised before the adjudicating authority. While the appellant briefly mentioned this defense before the first appellate authority, the Tribunal deemed it necessary for the adjudicating authority to thoroughly examine this factual aspect. Thus, without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice during the reevaluation process.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of addressing all relevant issues comprehensively and ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained throughout the adjudicative process. The decision to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority underscores the significance of a thorough and impartial reconsideration of the disputed issues, in line with the principles of natural justice.