2018 (5) TMI 881 - AT - Service Tax

Review order - Department entertained a view that the respondent has suppressed the value of the taxable services which resulted in short payment / escapement of service tax - Held that - Since in the assessee s appeal, the review order has already been examined and it has been held that there is no merit in the, impugned order and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee by setting aside the impugned order - the revision order merged in the order of the Tribunal in the assessee s appeal and therefore we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Review Adjudication order - Alleged suppression of taxable services value - Wrong availment of service tax credit - Penalty imposition - Revision order by Commissioner - Sustainability of Commissioner's order - Verification of records - Input service credit disallowance - Dropping of penalties - Tribunal's consideration of the impugned order - Merger of revision order in Tribunal's decision - Dismissal of Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Review Adjudication order dated 24/07/2007. The case involved the registration of the respondents with the Service Tax Department for Cable Operator Services, advertisement/internet services, and online information services. The Department alleged that the respondents suppressed the value of taxable services, resulting in short payment/escapement of service tax. Additionally, the respondents were accused of wrongly availing service tax credit and utilizing it towards payment of service tax on output services. A show-cause notice was issued, and after due process, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and dropped certain demands based on exemptions. The Assistant Commissioner also issued a revision show-cause notice, which led to the Commissioner's order, contested in the present case.

The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's revision order was unsustainable as the Commissioner allegedly did not verify all relevant records, including ST3 returns, to show that the input service credit was not availed or utilized by the respondents. The Revenue also claimed that the Commissioner failed to disallow the input service credit wrongly availed and utilized, and penalties under various sections were dropped in the revision order. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel defended the impugned order, stating that a Division Bench of the Tribunal had already considered and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, providing consequential relief. The Tribunal had merged the revision order in its decision, rendering the Revenue's appeal without merit.

After reviewing the submissions and the Tribunal's decision in the appellant's case, it was found that the Tribunal had already allowed the appeal of the assessee in a previous case against the same review adjudication order. The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the impugned order and set it aside. As the revision order had merged with the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's appeal, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the operative part of the order at the conclusion of the hearing.