2010 (5) TMI 432 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) Must Consider Current Evidence: Tribunal Remands for Fresh Decision

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in solely relying on a previous decision without adequately considering the current case's ... Non-speaking order - cenvat credit of the service tax - Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal on the basis of the decision in the earlier appeal - ignoring the fact that the said decision was based on the materials which were available on the record in the earlier appeal and not in the matter in hand - Held that: - cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) – disposed off accordingly Issues: Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing appeal against order of adjudicating authority disallowing cenvat credit on freight charges for outward transportation of goods.Analysis:The appellants challenged the order dated 30-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which dismissed their appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority dated 26-2-2009. The Additional Commissioner disallowed cenvat credit of Rs. 26,10,247/-, imposed recovery with interest, and penalty based on Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T. The Department alleged unlawful availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid for freight charges by the goods transport agency for outward transportation of goods. The show cause notice was issued on 20-1-2008, leading to the present appeal challenging the denial of cenvat credit.The appellants, engaged in the manufacture and clearance of specific products, contested the impugned order on various grounds. However, the main contention was that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a previous appeal between the parties without analyzing the current record's justification for denying cenvat credit. The impugned order highlighted the appellants' failure to submit crucial documents, specifically copies of sales orders, which were deemed essential for deciding the availability of credit on GTA services. Despite requests for these documents, no response was received, leading to the decision being made based on available evidence. The Commissioner's reliance on the earlier decision without proper analysis of the current case's merits was deemed improper, necessitating a remand for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in solely relying on a previous decision without adequately considering the current case's evidence and merits. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a proper analysis of the records and adherence to legal provisions. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits but directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reevaluate the matter in light of the applicable laws.