2014 (5) TMI 579 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax - Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Held that - Prima facie, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant had not been serious from the date of issuance of the first SCN i.e. on 30th April, 2010 in responding to the allegations of the Department about short payment of service tax. Both sides at this stage, agree that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the evidences which were not earlier placed before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the case may be remitted to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afresh - Matter remitted back with order of pre deposit - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties under various sections - Violation of natural justice - Non-cooperation by the applicant - Request for remand for fresh consideration of evidence.

Analysis:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.12,56,70,490/- along with penalties imposed under different sections. The advocate for the appellant argued that the Department issued two show cause notices for the same period, with significantly varying amounts demanded. The appellant claimed they were not provided with relevant documents supporting the demand mentioned in the second notice. The advocate contended that the order passed ex parte was a violation of natural justice as they were not granted sufficient time during the personal hearing. The appellant offered to deposit Rs.25.00 Lakhs and requested a remand to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on newly submitted evidences.

The Revenue's representative stated that the first notice was based on available documents, but due to the appellant's non-cooperation, a second notice with corrected liabilities was issued. They argued that all relevant documents were provided to the appellant, albeit after the personal hearing. The Revenue agreed to the remand but highlighted the appellant's dilatory conduct as the reason for the need to issue multiple notices. The advocate for the appellant clarified that they requested document supply during the adjudication proceedings and were denied an adjournment on the final hearing date, leading to the delayed order issuance in January 2012.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the issuance of two show cause notices for the same period and the lack of seriousness displayed by the appellant in responding to the Department's allegations. The appellant presented substantial evidence before the Tribunal, which was not previously submitted to the adjudicating authority. Both parties agreed to remand the case for a fresh consideration of evidence. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.25.00 Lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance to the Commissioner. The adjudication process was to be completed within four months after the deposit compliance, with all relevant documents to be exchanged between the parties. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, thus disposing of the matter.