2013 (7) TMI 329 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate tribunal remands case for fresh review, stresses factual verification & full payment consideration.

The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review. The tribunal emphasized the need ... Mismatched service tax liability – assessee was engaged into discharging the service tax liability under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services and Business Auxiliary Services - a show cause notice demands the service tax liability for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 – Held that:- Adjudicating authority should be given a chance to verify the facts appellant claiming and is able to show that they had paid the entire amount of the service tax liability as demanded in the show cause notice and much more than that - the issue needs to be factually verified – matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority – appeal allowed in the favour of assessee. Issues:1. Discrepancy in service tax liability payment.2. Adjudicating authority's dismissal of appellant's contentions.3. Consideration of entire amount paid by the appellant.4. Need for factual verification.5. Remittal of the matter back to the adjudicating authority.Analysis:1. The case involves a discrepancy in the payment of service tax liability by the appellant, who had a service tax registration certificate and discharged tax liability under specific categories. The audit revealed a mismatch between the tax liability paid by the appellant and the income shown in the balance sheet, leading to show cause notices, demands, penalties, and interest imposition by the adjudicating authority.2. The appellant contended that they had paid more tax than the amount payable, supported by data provided to the adjudicating authority. However, the authority dismissed these contentions citing discrepancies in the dates of challans produced by the appellant. The appellate tribunal noted the importance of considering all payments made by the appellant during the relevant period for determining the service tax liability.3. Upon careful consideration, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim that they had paid the entire service tax liability demanded and more. Recognizing the need for factual verification, the tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and data presented by the appellant to establish the discharge of service tax liability accurately.4. While refraining from expressing an opinion on the case's merits, the tribunal directed the appellant's counsel to cooperate with the lower authorities in providing accurate data and evidence for verification purposes. The decision to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority was made to ensure a fair reconsideration of the issue in line with the principles of natural justice, allowing for a comprehensive review of the appellant's service tax liability.5. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and instructing the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the matter after factual verification. The decision highlighted the importance of a holistic approach in assessing service tax liability and the necessity for thorough examination and verification of all relevant data and evidence presented by the appellant.