2008 (1) TMI 285 - AT - Service Tax

Courier service - quantification of demand appellants plea that unrelied documents/hard disc (seized by the Revenue) have not been returned to them, so they could not defend their case - appellants have already paid the amount of service tax as per adjudication order - matter requires reconsideration in respect of pleas of the appellants regarding deposits made in the bank which are not related to service provided by them dept is directed to return unrelied documents case is remanded

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quantification of service tax demand
2. Violation of principle of natural justice regarding non-relied documents
3. Cooperation during investigation and continuation of service after surrender of registration

Quantification of Service Tax Demand:
The appellants, engaged in providing courier services, did not contest the demand and penalties imposed for service tax payment. They raised concerns about the quantification of the demand, arguing that amounts unrelated to the services provided were included, such as bank deposits from various sources. The appellants also highlighted that they provided services to an entity exempt from tax, yet the amounts received were added to the assessable value for taxation. The Tribunal noted that while the appellants admitted certain tax liabilities, they disputed the proper quantification of the demand. As a result, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, directing a fresh decision on the disputed amount of service tax after ensuring the appellants are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

Violation of Principle of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as certain unrelied documents and hard discs seized by the Revenue were not returned to them. This hindered their ability to mount a proper defense regarding the quantification of the demands. Recognizing this issue, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to return all non-relied upon documents and hard discs to enable the appellants to present their case effectively. The adjudicating authority was instructed to reconsider the matter, taking into account this procedural irregularity and ensuring the appellants have a fair chance to address the quantification concerns.

Cooperation During Investigation and Service Continuation After Registration Surrender:
The Revenue argued that the appellants did not cooperate during the investigation and continued to provide services even after surrendering their registration. Despite these contentions, the Tribunal primarily focused on the appellants' challenge related to the quantification of the service tax demand. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had already paid the service tax amount as per the previous order but emphasized the need for a proper reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, especially concerning the deposits unrelated to the services provided. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the disputed tax amount and penalties, with the directive to afford the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case adequately.