2017 (7) TMI 528 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - abatement - Mandap Keeper service - Dry Cleaner service - CENVAT credit - Revenue is of the view that the appellant could not adduce any breakup or details of the amount of ₹ 11,723/- and could not produce any documentary evidence to prove their contention, in respect of allegation about abatement - the appellant submitted before me that the Cenvat credit availed in respect of Mandap Keeper Services & Dry Cleaner Services were reversed before issue of Show Cause Notice and such evidence was submitted to the Original Authority, which was examined - Held that - matter remanded back to the Original Authority with direction to examine all the records that were already produced and now shall be produced during re-adjudication. The appellant also directed to produce all the evidences to establish their case along with reconciliation so as to enable the Original Authority to come to logical conclusion - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of abatement in services provided
2. Availment of Cenvat credit in excess
3. Short payment of Service Tax
4. Adjudication process and appeal

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Piccadity Holiday Resorts Limited, appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. 51-ST/LKO/2011 dated 04/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. The case involved the appellant providing services like "Mandap Keeper, Dry Cleaner & Transport of goods by Road." The appellant was found availing abatement for Mandap Keeper Services & Dry Cleaner Services while also taking Cenvat credit for Service Tax paid on input services, thereby violating conditions for abatement. Additionally, there were allegations of short payment of Service Tax and excess availing of Cenvat credit amounting to ?20,930. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 11/11/2009, leading to adjudication through Order-in-Original No. 24/ADC/LKO/2010 dated 08/06/2010 where the demand was confirmed and penalties imposed. The appeal was then taken to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the original order.

2. During the hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant failed to provide a breakup or details of the amount deposited by them, nor any evidence linking it to their outstanding Service Tax liability. The demand for Mandap Keeper Services & Dry Cleaner Services from October 2006 to March 2007 was deemed sustainable. The appellant also couldn't substantiate their claim regarding abatement or the excess Cenvat credit availed. However, the appellant argued that the Cenvat credit for the mentioned services was reversed before the Show Cause Notice and presented evidence to the Original Authority. In light of this, the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority for re-examination. The appellant was directed to provide all necessary evidence for a logical conclusion to be reached.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside both the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, remanding the case back to the Original Authority for further scrutiny and reconciliation of records. The appellant was instructed to furnish all evidence required to support their case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for a more thorough examination of the facts and evidence presented.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of providing detailed evidence and complying with tax regulations when availing abatement and Cenvat credit, emphasizing the need for a proper adjudication process to ensure a fair outcome for all parties involved.