2018 (10) TMI 1475 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - It has vehemently been argued that the adjudication order for the subsequent period under the impugned Order-in-Original has also been dealt in the similar manner without any application of mind - Held that - The impugned Order-in-Original has not appreciated and considered the submission made by the appellant properly. All the submissions which have been made by the appellant in their written submissions as well as during personal hearing have not been dealt with properly and legally - it is proper to remand back the impugned Order-in-Original for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Service Tax under various taxable services
2. Confirmation of demand and penalty by the adjudicating Commissioner
3. Appellants' submissions not properly considered
4. Request for remand back for fresh adjudication

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the issue of demand raised by the department under six taxable services provided by the appellants, including commercial coaching, franchise services, renting of immovable property, management consultancy, business auxiliary services, and manpower recruitment services. A Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, demanding a significant amount of Service Tax, along with penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. The Order-in-Original confirmed the entire demand and imposed penalties, leading the appellants to appeal against it.

2. The adjudicating Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalties based on the analysis of the appellants' balance sheets from 2008-09 to 2011-12. The appellants argued that the demand was solely based on financial statements without proper consideration of their activities, such as providing training programs under government schemes, computer training, franchise networks, manpower supply, and educational collaborations with universities for the underprivileged.

3. The learned Advocate contended that the adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the submissions made by the appellants during the proceedings. It was highlighted that a previous adjudication order on similar grounds was challenged and remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication due to the authority's failure to consider the appellants' submissions. The appellants argued that the same lack of consideration was evident in the current Order-in-Original.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the impugned Order-in-Original did not properly consider the appellants' submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication. The appellants were directed to submit all necessary documents, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case adequately. This decision aimed to ensure a proper and fair consideration of the appellants' submissions in the fresh adjudication process.