2018 (12) TMI 934 - HC - Service Tax

Abatement claim - receipt of payment after 1.6.2007 - whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee without verifying the claim of the assessee that they completed the services prior to 01.6.2007 and consequently, they are entitled for abatement? - Held that - The matters are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to verify as to whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT and examine as to whether the assessee has completed the services prior to 01.6.2007 though payments were received by the assessee after the said date - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the final order passed by the Tribunal.
- Substantial questions of law raised by Revenue regarding completion of services, verification of claims, and allowing appeals based on previous decisions.
- Consideration of whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeals without verifying the completion of services by the assessee.
- Verification process required to ascertain the completion of services prior to a specific date for entitlement to abatement.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed appeals challenging the Tribunal's final order, questioning the completion date of services by the respondent and the lack of documentary evidence supporting it. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous order in the respondent's case, raising concerns about the verification process.

2. The main issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeals without verifying the claim of the assessee regarding the completion of services before a specific date, which would impact their entitlement to abatement.

3. The learned Senior Standing Counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision did not address the crucial aspect of whether the services were indeed rendered prior to the specified date, despite payments being received after that date. This lack of specific findings raised concerns about the correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

4. The Adjudicating Authority, after remand, accepted the assessee's case in certain instances, dropping proceedings and show cause notices. However, the need for a thorough verification process was emphasized, considering the different periods involved in the appeals.

5. The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matters to the Adjudicating Authority for verification. The Authority was directed to examine if the assessee qualified for the benefit of a Supreme Court decision and determine the completion date of services vis-a-vis the payment dates.

6. The Court stressed the importance of expeditiously completing the verification process within three months to resolve the pending matters effectively. The respondent was given the opportunity to present all contentions before the Adjudicating Authority in the fresh proceedings.