2024 (9) TMI 1599 - AT - Service Tax

Confirmation of demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalties - classification of service under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, Erection Commissioning and Installation service and Management Maintenance or Repair service - services provided during the period 2006-07 to 2010-2011 - Circular No. 12305/2010-ST dated 24.05.2010 - HELD THAT - The appellants are engaged in providing various services which they claim are in the nature of services which are exempted in terms of Circular No. 12305/2010 dated 24.05.2010 and Notification No. 11/2010 dated 27.10.2010. The benefit of the said circular and Notification as essentially being denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence that the services provided by them are in the nature of the services covered by the said Circular and the Notification. It is apparent that the records of the appellants were taken away by the Revenue and therefore, they do not have access to all the documents. However a copy of the documents (almost 150 pages) has been enclosed along with the statements made by the appellant before Tribunal. In this background, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the matter in light of the documents presented by the appellant, (which were probably available with the original adjudicating authority) and decide the matter fresh in terms of the aforementioned Circular and Notification. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services for service tax purposes.
2. Exemption under Circular No. 12305/2010-ST and Notification No. 11/2010-ST.
3. Failure to produce evidence supporting exemption claim.
4. Appeal dismissal due to delay and subsequent remand by CESTAT.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of services provided by the appellants for service tax purposes, specifically under Business Auxiliary Service, Erection Commissioning and Installation service, and Management Maintenance or Repair service. The appellants argued that their services, such as erection of poles and transformers, were not chargeable to service tax and were exempted under Circular No. 12305/2010-ST and Notification No. 11/2010-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially confirmed the demand, citing lack of a separate stay application, but the Tribunal directed a re-examination on merits.

2. The main contention revolved around the appellants' failure to produce sufficient evidence supporting their claim for exemption under Circular No. 12305/2010-ST and Notification No. 11/2010-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that while certain benefits were recognized under the circular and notification, the appellants failed to provide necessary documents, such as work orders or tender details, to substantiate their exemption claim. The appellants submitted a letter and bill copies before the Commissioner (Appeals) but were deemed insufficient.

3. The appeal process faced procedural challenges, as the initial appeal was dismissed due to a delay in filing without a condonation application detailing the reasons for the delay. Subsequently, the appellants appealed to CESTAT, which remanded the case back to the original forum for consideration on merit, condoning the filing delay. The appellants raised various grounds for appeal, including seeking refunds based on Circular No. 123/05/2010-TRU, amendments in the Finance Act, and specific notifications providing exemptions related to transmission of electricity and abatement for services containing both labor and material costs.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination in light of the documents presented by the appellants. The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges faced by the appellants in accessing all relevant documents taken by the Revenue, leading to a lack of evidence to support their exemption claim. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a re-examination based on the available documentation.