2024 (2) TMI 564 - AT - Service Tax

Non/short-payment of service tax - difference between the trial balance figures and S.T.-3 Returns - time limitation - HELD THAT - In this case, the appellant has raised various issues in reply to the Show Cause Notices issued to them, on merits as well as on limitation and the same have been argued before this Tribunal also. However, the ld. adjudicating authority has not given any heed to the defence placed by the appellant. It would be in the interests of justice to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, to examine the documents filed by the appellant in reply to the Show Cause Notices. It would be convenient if the adjudicating authority would depute an officer who along with an officer of the appellant would sit together and compile the documents and thereafter, the adjudicating authority, on the basis of the report placed by the officers, shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law considering all the issues on merits as well as on limitation. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment include the denial of CENVAT Credit, demand of Service Tax on export of service, liability for Service Tax on goods transport agency services, and the method of Service Tax payment.

Denial of CENVAT Credit:
The appellant's CENVAT Credit was denied based on alleged discrepancies between payment documents and invoices. The appellant argued that TDS and other deductions were required to be made from the invoices for payment. The appellant contended that the denial of CENVAT Credit was unjustified.

Demand of Service Tax on Export of Service:
The appellant contested the demand of Service Tax on export of service, claiming that the services were consumed outside India and thus not liable for Service Tax in India. The appellant maintained that they should not be required to pay Service Tax on services provided outside the country.

Liability for Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency Services:
The appellant argued that they should not be liable to pay Service Tax on goods transport agency (GTA) services, as the transportation charges were borne by the sender of the goods, not by the appellant. The appellant highlighted that they had paid Service Tax on a receipt basis until March 2011, whereas the demand was based on a running-bill basis.

Method of Service Tax Payment:
The appellant raised concerns about the method of Service Tax payment, stating that they were providing works contract services that included materials, for which they believed they were not required to pay Service Tax. They contended that if the documents regarding the works contract services were properly compiled, the tax demand would have been lower. The appellant also argued that certain issues related to the demands raised had not been examined during adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the appellant had raised various issues in response to the Show Cause Notices, which were not adequately addressed by the adjudicating authority. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the documents provided by the appellant. The adjudicating authority was instructed to consider all issues on merits and limitation, and to make a decision within 180 days from the date of the order. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand for further review and decision.