9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 356 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of predeposit of service tax and penalty imposed u/s 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal without giving any personal hearing for non-compliance under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the case is made on the disallowance of abatement of service tax on GTA. Held that - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits. Therefore, we remand the case to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits without insisting for any further predeposit. Both sides are at liberty to produce the relevant documents in their support. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand. Stay petition is disposed of.
Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994; Non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Disallowance of abatement of service tax on GTA; Decision on merits without predeposit. Analysis: The applicant sought waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalty, arguing that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the stay petition without a personal hearing and directed total predeposit of dues without deciding the issue on merit. The case revolved around the disallowance of abatement of service tax on GTA, with the applicant expressing readiness to produce relevant documents if given an opportunity during the stay petition hearing. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of without the predeposit requirement. The Tribunal noted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the case on its merits and remanded the case back for a decision on merits without insisting on further predeposit. Both parties were allowed to produce relevant documents, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of accordingly. The judgment was delivered by Shri S. K. Gaule and Dr. D. M. Misra, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of deciding the case on merits and providing a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments and evidence. The Tribunal's decision focused on ensuring a just and thorough consideration of the issues involved, highlighting the significance of proper adjudication based on merit rather than procedural aspects.
|
