2010 (8) TMI 480 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) rejects appeal due to lack of reasoning, remanded for detailed decision.

The appeal against the Order-in-Original, concerning non-payment of service tax and adjustment without documentary evidence, was rejected. The ... Demand - non speaking order - principal of natural justice -Held that: - On going through the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), although the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the submissions made by the appellant but no concrete finding was given by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the impugned order is a non-speaking order as submitted by the Consultant and JDR - Decided in the favour of the assessee by way of remand Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original, Non-payment of service tax, Adjustment of tax, Documentary evidence submission, Commissioner (Appeals) findings, Non-speaking orderAppeal against Order-in-Original:The appellants filed an appeal against the impugned order where the Order-in-Original was upheld, and their appeal was rejected. The allegations were related to non-payment of service tax for March 2005 for taxable services received, which the appellants adjusted under Rule 6(3) but failed to produce documentary evidence. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalties, leading to the filing of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).Non-payment of Service Tax and Adjustment:The appellant was accused of not paying service tax for a specific month and adjusting it without providing the necessary documentary evidence. The lower adjudicating authority found the reasons for rejecting the claim to be valid, citing non-fulfilment of conditions prescribed under relevant rules. The appellant's failure to produce documentary evidence and file prescribed returns in time were crucial factors in the decision.Submission of Documentary Evidence and Commissioner (Appeals) Findings:The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the submissions made by the appellant but did not provide concrete findings. The Commissioner's order was deemed a non-speaking order, lacking detailed reasoning or explanation for the decision. This led to a lack of clarity in the decision-making process, prompting a challenge to the validity of the order.Non-Speaking Order and Remand:Upon review, it was noted that the impugned order was also a non-speaking order, failing to address the issues adequately. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order. Both parties were to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, ensuring a more comprehensive and reasoned decision-making process.