2014 (1) TMI 1050 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Construction services - Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Denial of the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST and 1/2006-ST, which permits abatement to the extent of 67% - Held that - as per the service tax Order No. 1194 dated 29.06.1994 issued by the Board, the jurisdiction of various officers to decide the service tax dispute stands detailed. In terms of the said order, Commissioner of Central Excise will have the jurisdiction as defined in sub-rule (ii) of Rule 2 of Central Excise Rule, 1994 in terms of the Notification No. 14/2002-CE (NT) dated 8.3.2002, as amended, Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida will have jurisdiction to decide the cases in the Districts specified therein and admittedly the State of Maharashtra or Delhi is not one of the specified territories - as the Commissioner has not examined the angle of jurisdiction from the above point of view, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for fresh look into the angle of jurisdiction. It is suggested that if the Commissioner is of the view that the matter falls outside his jurisdiction, he is at liberty to approach the Board for the appropriate action required for appointing a single adjudicating authority for multiple registrations - Following decision of Vihar Ahar Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2012 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and Ores India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Cus. & ST, Bhubaneshwar-II 2007 (7) TMI 138 - CESTAT, KOLKATA - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to decide service tax liability for construction services provided at multiple places.
2. Denial of abatement benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST and 1/2006-ST.
3. Failure to consider appellant's defense pleas and submissions.
4. Discrepancy in service tax amount recovered and deposited.
5. Appellant's contention regarding jurisdiction based on ST-I form and registration details.

Jurisdiction Issue:
The appellant challenged the Commissioner's jurisdiction to decide service tax liability for construction services provided at various locations, arguing that the place of service provider did not fall under the Commissioner's jurisdiction. The Commissioner considered the registration at Noida as centralized and rejected the appellant's plea regarding jurisdiction. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, referencing the ST-I form, registration details, and the jurisdictional order. They set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh examination of the jurisdictional angle.

Abatement Benefit Denial:
The Commissioner denied the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 12/2003-ST and 1/2006-ST, citing the appellant's use of free material supplied by customers. The Tribunal noted the denial of abatement and directed the Commissioner to reconsider this aspect along with the jurisdictional issue upon remand.

Failure to Consider Defense Pleas:
The appellant raised several defense pleas, which the Commissioner allegedly did not adequately address in the impugned order. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's grievances and instructed the Commissioner to reconsider the defense pleas during the fresh examination of the case.

Discrepancy in Service Tax Amount:
The Revenue contended that the appellant recovered service tax from clients but did not deposit the same, leading to a discrepancy in the amount. The Tribunal considered this discrepancy and directed the Commissioner to review the matter comprehensively during the fresh examination.

Appellant's Contention on Jurisdiction:
The appellant argued that their registration at Noida was specific to the construction activity at that location and not for services provided at other places like Delhi or Maharashtra. They highlighted details from the ST-I form, summon locations, and past tribunal decisions to support their contention. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's jurisdictional argument and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the Commissioner.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi showcases the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's directions for a fresh examination of the case by the Commissioner.