2023 (9) TMI 1012 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - consultancy engineering services - no order passed on the stay petition filed by the appellant - appellant contend that the first appellate authority has grossly mis-directed himself by referring to an order dated 07.02.2013, which was non-existent and non-applicable to the appellant since admittedly, the date of personal hearing itself was 08.10.2013 at 02 45 p.m. HELD THAT - The contentions of the Ld. Advocate agreed upon since the said order referred to by the lower appellate authority in OISP No. 24/2013(M-IV) dated 07.02.2013 is non-existent; even if it is in existence, the same cannot be made applicable to the appellant since the very first date of hearing itself is in October i.e., 08.10.2013 - thus, the impugned dismissal order by the first appellate authority can never sustain, There is no discussion on merits and hence, it is deemed proper to restore the case back to the file of the first appellate authority for passing a de novo order on merit alone. It goes without saying that the first appellate authority shall adhere to the principles of natural justice thereby affording reasonable and time-bound opportunities to the appellant before passing the de novo order - Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of Service Tax liability for consultancy engineering services rendered to parties in India and abroad, compliance with Board Circular No. 254/1/2003-CX.4, demand for Service Tax, Education Cess, interest, and penalties for the period 2003-2005, dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with stay condition.

The appellant contested a Show Cause Notice alleging non-payment of Service Tax for consultancy engineering services rendered to foreign parties from 2003 to 2005. The Revenue claimed the appellant did not satisfy conditions in Board Circular No. 254/1/2003-CX.4 and demanded Rs.14,60,984/- for Service Tax, Education Cess, interest, and penalties. The appellant denied liability, arguing they provided only 'manpower supply' services to a specific client, supported by evidence of supplying qualified workforce for overseas projects. The adjudicating authority confirmed demands for services to various clients except for the supply of manpower to the specific client.

The appellant appealed the demands confirmed in the Order-in-Original, but the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with a stay condition. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that no order on the stay petition was passed, making the dismissal unsustainable. The appellant contended that the first appellate authority misdirected by referring to a non-existent order dated 07.02.2013, while the date of personal hearing was 08.10.2013. The Assistant Commissioner supported the first appellate authority's findings, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply with the stay condition.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions, noting the non-existence of the order referred to by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal order and directed the case to be restored to the first appellate authority for a de novo order on merit alone. The first appellate authority was instructed to adhere to principles of natural justice, provide timely opportunities for the appellant, and pass the de novo order within ninety days from the receipt of the Tribunal's Order. All contentions were left open, and the appeal was disposed of by way of remand.

*( Order pronounced in the open court on 21. 09. 2023 )*