2018 (9) TMI 502 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Order - Manpower recruitment or supply agency Services - Held that - From the record, it is observed that the grounds of appeal as raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) included all other grounds of defence as were taken by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority. The silence of the Commissioner qua all remaining grounds mentioned therein makes it clear that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is a non-speaking order as far as the merits of the appeal are concerned - Further perusal of record shows that the appellant himself has provided a chart with breakup of such different services, as alleged by the Department of being provided by him. It is a fit case to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to be re-decided qua all the issues of the appeal - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged provision of various taxable services to M/s. J.K. Tyre & Industries.
2. Dismissal of application for rectification of mistake apparent on record.
3. Rejection of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the demand raised.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, registered for providing taxable services, was alleged to have provided maintenance, management, repair, and manpower services to M/s. J.K. Tyre & Industries. A Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to a demand of Rs.4,94,525/- along with interest and penalties. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand based on different services provided to M/s. J.K. Tyre. The appellant filed an application for rectification of the mistake apparent on record, which was dismissed. The subsequent appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected, prompting the current appeal.

2. The Tribunal noted that the Department had accepted the appellant's contention regarding not providing manpower recruitment or supply agency services to M/s. J.K. Tyres in the Show Cause Notice itself. However, the Order in Original did not reflect this acknowledgment and confirmed the entire demand, including the service of manpower recruitment. The Tribunal found this to be an apparent error, leading to the filing of the current appeal before them.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for confining himself only to the appellant's grievance regarding the rejection of the rectification application. The Tribunal observed that the grounds of appeal raised before the Commissioner included all defenses presented before the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner's silence on the remaining grounds indicated a non-speaking order, failing to address the merits of the appeal comprehensively. The appellant had provided a chart detailing the different services alleged by the Department, seeking abatement if the demand was confirmed. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to properly discharge his duty by not considering all allegations and findings, necessitating a remand for a re-decision on all appeal issues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive reconsideration of all issues raised in the appeal.