2015 (10) TMI 1054 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of service Tax - Services of Laying Long Distance Pipelines under issue Appellant contends that service tax is not leviable and opportunity of hearing must be given Revenue contends that Appellant have not produced any evidence in support of their contention. Held That - Matter should be examined by the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice and proper opportunity of hearing be given Matter remanded back Decision made in the case of CCE & Cus., Kerala vs. Larson & Toubro 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT followed Decided in favour of the Appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Service tax on services of Laying Long Distance Pipelines

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service tax applicability on services of Laying Long Distance Pipelines
The appellants contended that service tax is not leviable on their services of Laying Long Distance Pipelines, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. However, the Revenue's representative argued that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim. The appellants' advocate acknowledged having evidence to support their position and requested an opportunity to present it before the adjudicating authority.

Issue 2: Remand and fresh examination by adjudicating authority
Considering the Supreme Court's decision on the law and the advocate's submissions on facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the adjudicating authority considering both the facts and the law of the case, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their evidence. The Tribunal clarified that their decision to remand the case did not imply any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed for remand, and an application for extension was dismissed as infructuous.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed a re-examination of the issue of service tax applicability on services of Laying Long Distance Pipelines by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of both facts and legal aspects. The decision to remand the case was made to ensure justice and proper examination without expressing any preconceived views on the case's merits.