2014 (6) TMI 764 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - Whether the appellant is liable to service tax for having provided BAS to other corporate entities - Held that - The appellant is seen to have been wholly uncooperative and has exhibited a negative attitude in responding to the exercise of lawful authority, in the matter of assessment. It is axiomatic that the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking, ought to exhibit a sense of responsibility in responding to notices or summons issued by the Assessing Authority ; by furnishing all the relevant information necessary to enable a just and fair assessment of the appellant s liability, if any. As a Public Sector Undertaking, the assessee ought to have been a role model to other assesses, in the matter of providing full and frank disclosure of all the relevant transactions and material, called for by Revenue - Cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the assessee - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Stay petition consideration leading to disposal of appeal and remittance to adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
2. Initiation of recovery proceedings for service tax, interest, and penalty against the appellant.
3. Allegations of providing Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) to multiple entities without providing requested information.
4. Lack of cooperation and responsibility exhibited by the appellant during the assessment process.
5. Adjudication order analysis, rejection of appellant's claims, and remittance for denovo adjudication.
6. Imposition of costs on the appellant due to non-cooperative conduct.

Issue 1: Stay petition consideration and remittance for fresh adjudication
The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the stay petition, decided to dispose of the appeal and remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration based on the adjudication order dated 29.10.2010.

Issue 2: Recovery proceedings for service tax, interest, and penalty
Recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellant, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., for providing Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to various entities, including M/s IOCL, Marketing Division, and M/s BPCL, Haldia. Show-cause notices were issued proposing a substantial amount of service tax, interest, and penalties.

Issue 3: Allegations of providing BAS without providing information
The appellant was accused of providing BAS to different entities without furnishing requested details, leading to the proposals in the show-cause notices being based on information available with Revenue. The appellant's responses were deemed inadequate and lacking in necessary transactional information.

Issue 4: Lack of cooperation and responsibility
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, was criticized for its uncooperative and negative attitude during the assessment process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely and full disclosure of relevant information to enable a fair assessment of liability.

Issue 5: Adjudication order analysis and remittance for fresh consideration
The adjudication order lacked factual analysis and failed to provide a detailed examination of the transactions between the appellant and other entities. The Tribunal highlighted flaws in the reasoning of the adjudicating authority and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication by the jurisdictional Commissioner.

Issue 6: Imposition of costs due to non-cooperative conduct
In light of the appellant's non-cooperative behavior leading to an incoherent adjudication order, costs of Rs.50,000 were imposed to be deposited to the credit of Revenue. The appellant was also advised to take appropriate steps against officers responsible for the lack of response or information provision.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision.

← Previous Next →