2013 (1) TMI 520 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Remands Case for Fresh Consideration, Emphasizes Importance of Evidence

M/s. Terapanth Foods Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise. Rajkot

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of a letter ... Goods Transport Agency services - interest and penalties levied on non discharging of service tax liability - Held that:- On perusal of the letter dated 16.01.2012, written by the Range Superintendent Gandhidham-II to the Dy. Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Rajkot, it is find, the said letter indicates that the claim made by the appellant was verified by the Superintendent along with returns and details and it indicates that service tax liability has been discharged by the appellant. Thus this letter and the details submitted by the appellant regarding discharge of service tax liability needs to be considered and appreciated in its correct perspective by the adjudicating authority - remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh. Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed service tax, interest, and penalties under Finance Act, 1994 for Goods Transport Agency services from 2005 to 2009.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amounts. The service tax liability on Goods Transport Agency services received by the appellant from 2005 to 2009 was confirmed along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellant argued that they had discharged the service tax liability on transportation charges and presented a letter dated 16.01.2012 from the office of Superintendent Service Tax, Range, Gandhidham-II as evidence. The letter verified the appellant's claim of discharging the service tax liability, which was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The appellant also provided certificates and details supporting their claim.3. The departmental representative contended that the adjudicating authority did not consider all the details provided by the appellant and claimed that not all supporting documents were submitted. After considering the submissions and records, it was found that the core allegation was the non-discharge of service tax liability on Goods Transport Agency services received by the appellant at their Gandhidham and Hospet factories.4. The Tribunal observed that the letter dated 16.01.2012 from the Range Superintendent Gandhidham-II to the Dy. Commissioner indicated that the appellant's claim of discharging the service tax liability was verified. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering this letter and the details submitted by the appellant in the correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice.5. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reevaluation of the issue based on the evidence presented by the appellant and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter afresh.