2009 (7) TMI 40 - AT - Service Tax

Advertising Service - appellant made an application to the jurisdictional authorities on 15.11.06 stating that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of advertising services for which the registration taken earlier can be cancelled the prayer of the appellant for cancellation of registration certificate was not considered by speaking order held that before rejected the application, an opportunity of being heard must be given to assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding liability to pay service tax under the category of advertising services.
2. Failure to consider appellant's application for cancellation of registration.
3. Dismissal of appeal by the Ld. Commissioner.
4. Lack of quantification of the demand.
5. Need for a fair hearing before cancellation of Registration Certificate.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, in this case, raised a dispute regarding the liability to pay service tax under the category of advertising services and sought cancellation of their registration. However, the jurisdictional authorities did not consider this request, leading to dissatisfaction on the part of the appellant.

2. The Superintendent passed an order without addressing the appellant's application for cancellation of registration, which was a crucial aspect of the case. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal, highlighting the appellant's failure to provide the Original Registration Certificate during the cancellation application.

3. The appellate authority's order was deemed irrational by the Appellate Tribunal due to the lack of a fair hearing before the cancellation of the Registration Certificate. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of due process and fair opportunity for the appellant in such matters.

4. The issue of quantification of the demand was raised by the Departmental Representative, indicating a procedural flaw in the proceedings. This highlighted the need for a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the financial implications involved in the case.

5. To rectify the procedural irregularities and ensure justice for both parties, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh hearing. The appellant was directed to appear before the Commissioner, who was instructed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case and pass a reasoned order based on the submissions and relevant legal provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues raised, the procedural shortcomings identified, and the Tribunal's decision to uphold the principles of natural justice and due process in resolving the dispute.