2013 (5) TMI 256 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax - Correct quantitative extent of tax liability - Held that - From the impugned order, it is obvious that the payments claimed to have been made by the assessee were not taken into account by the adjudicating authority while confirming the demands against them. The factual position is that service tax liability stands admitted to the extent of Rs. 66,59,354/- and an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- stands paid towards the same. We further observe that it will not be open to the assessee to dispute tax liability, though it shall be open to them to argue against the penal proposals raised in the SCN. Thus, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner to requantify the assessee s tax liability correctly after taking into account the payments hitherto made by them.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant seeks waiver and stay for adjudged dues including service tax and education cesses.
2. Dispute over the quantum of service tax and other dues.
3. Appellant's claim of payments not considered by the adjudicating authority.
4. Appropriate quantification of tax liability required.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay for the adjudged dues, which included a significant amount demanded for service tax and education cesses for a specific period. After reviewing the records and hearing both parties, the tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal without pre-deposit and proceeded to take up the appeal.

2. The impugned demand was related to security agency services, with the taxability of the service not being disputed. However, the issue at hand was the quantum of service tax and other dues to be paid by the assessee. The show-cause notice alleged a specific amount to have been short-paid, with certain amounts already paid by the assessee proposed to be appropriated. Despite the assessee's submission regarding their outstanding liability, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand without considering the claimed payments, leading to penalties imposed on the assessee. The appeal was directed against this decision.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted recent payments made towards the outstanding liability, providing relevant challans as evidence. The appellant accepted a specific service tax liability for the mentioned period and had made additional payments towards it. The tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the payments claimed by the assessee, leading to a lack of proper quantification of the tax liability. As a result, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a correct quantification of the tax liability, considering the payments made by the assessee.

4. The tribunal emphasized that while the appellant could not dispute the tax liability admitted to a specific extent, they could argue against the penal proposals. The direction for requantifying the tax liability was subject to the condition that the appellant predeposit the specified amount within a set timeframe. The stay application was also disposed of in this regard.