2018 (5) TMI 877 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of SCN - Penalty - evasion of payment of service tax - Held that - the SCN for different period indicated the total value of different service tax and value thereon. It indicates various services provided by the appellant but has not specified the bifurcation of the total demand under various services. This lacuna which is very evident from the SCN - matter remanded for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original for service tax liability, penalty cum duty dispute, defective show cause notice, suppression of facts, benefit of cum tax value, remand for correction.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-original regarding service tax liability for the period from 01.04.2007 to 29.02.2012. The appellant provided taxable services such as "Security Agency Services," "Manpower Recruitment Services," and "Cleaning Services." The dispute centered around the penalty cum duty. A show cause notice was issued alleging evasion of service tax payment, resulting in a demand of ?1,23,27,651 along with interest and an equal penalty. The appellant contended that the show cause notice was defective as it failed to specify amounts for each service separately, citing a previous Tribunal case upheld by the Delhi High Court. The appellant had paid a portion of the service tax liability during investigation and the remaining amount post-order, claiming the benefit of cum tax value to argue against penalty imposition.

The Revenue argued that the appellant suppressed facts and collected service tax from customers but failed to remit it. They opposed extending the benefit of cum tax value due to suppression. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the deficiency in the show cause notice, which did not provide a breakdown of the total demand for each service. Citing the precedent set by the Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for correction. The adjudicating authority was instructed to allow the appellant a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and to submit fresh evidence if necessary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing a chance for the appellant to rectify the lacuna in the show cause notice and have the service tax liability determined accurately.