Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 47 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Management Consultancy Service and Various other services - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Without giving any findings on the merits of the case, we find in the impugned order that the major demand pertains to Management Consultancy Service and denial of cenvat credit on various services availed by the appellants. In the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner in the case of Management Consultancy Service has sought a verification to be done by the Assistant Commissioner. For denial of cenvat credit, the appellant has not produced any invoice. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to give an opportunity to the appellant to produce all the relevant documents in support of their defence and to obtain verification report from the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the payment of service tax on Management Consultant Service. The adjudicating authority shall hear the appellant on merits to demand service tax for Business Support Serviceand Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Serviceand thereafter shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on merits of the case , as contended by the appellant before us - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Demand of service tax on transit house income. 2. Demand of service tax on reimbursement received from sister unit. 3. Demand of service tax on Management Consultancy Service. 4. Denial of cenvat credit due to lack of produced invoices. Analysis: 1. Demand of service tax on transit house income: The appellant appealed against the order demanding service tax on transit house income provided to employees of the sister unit under Business Support Service (BSS). The appellant argued that providing transit home service does not fall under BSS as they did not provide infrastructure service to the sister unit. The contention was that the guest house was provided to both the appellant's employees and the sister unit's employees, thus not liable for service tax under BSS. The appellate tribunal found that the demand under BSS was not sustainable based on the appellant's submissions. 2. Demand of service tax on reimbursement received from sister unit: Service tax was demanded on the reimbursement received by the appellant from the sister unit for employees posted under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service. The appellant argued that this activity did not fall under the said category based on legal precedents. The tribunal considered the appellant's argument and found the demand under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service was not sustainable. 3. Demand of service tax on Management Consultancy Service: A demand for service tax was confirmed on the appellant for providing Management Consultancy Service to the sister unit. The appellant contended that the demand was not sustainable as the actual payable amount was unknown, and they made a provision in their books of account. The tribunal noted that the major demand pertained to Management Consultancy Service and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for further examination and verification. 4. Denial of cenvat credit: The appellant's cenvat credit was denied due to the lack of produced invoices. The tribunal found that the denial of cenvat credit was not sustainable as the appellant was not given an opportunity to produce the invoices against which the credit was taken. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to produce relevant documents and obtain verification reports. In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for further examination and consideration based on the appellant's submissions. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.
|