2017 (5) TMI 1024 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction o Commissioner (Appeals) - power to remand - Held that - reliance was placed in the case o in the case of World Vision 2009 (11) TMI 452 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , wherein it has been held that in Service Tax matters, the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to remand the matter to original adjudicating authority as Section 85(4) of the FA, 1994 is differently worded than Section 35A of the CEA, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order remanding matters back to the original adjudicating authority.
- Contention regarding the power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand matters back to the original adjudicating authority. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that remanded the matters. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to remand.

2. The Tribunal referred to a decision in the case of World Vision 2010 (20) STR 49 (Tri-Del) to address this issue. It was highlighted that in Service Tax matters, the Commissioner (Appeals) does have the power to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. This distinction was based on the wording differences between Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the difference in language between the two provisions. While Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act specifies the types of orders the Commissioner (Appeals) can pass, Section 85(4) of the Finance Act provides broader discretion. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(4) can pass orders, including remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority in appropriate cases.

4. The Tribunal clarified that the procedural aspects mentioned in Section 85(5) of the Finance Act should not be interpreted to restrict the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(4). The judgment distinguished previous decisions related to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, stating that they were not applicable due to the different provisions in the Finance Act, 1994.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions and the distinction between the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Service Tax matters compared to Central Excise Act cases.

This detailed analysis showcases how the Tribunal interpreted the legal provisions and precedent to resolve the issue regarding the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand matters in the context of Service Tax appeals.