CESTAT Kolkata Restores Stay Petitions, Allows Appeals sans Pre-Deposit

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata allowed the appellant's appeal for condonation of delay, recalling the dismissal order and restoring Stay Petitions and Appeals. The Tribunal decided to hear and dispose of the Appeals without pre-deposit of demands. The appellant sought remand to provide evidence supporting the proportionality of the demanded service tax amount. The Tribunal set aside the impugned Orders, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Commissioner to allow the appellant to produce evidence for quantifying the Service Tax based on consulting engineering service charges. All Appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair process.

---

---

Issues: Appeal for condonation of delay, pre-deposit of demands, service tax on contracted amount, proportionality of demanded amount, remand for evidence production, quantification of service tax.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, the appellant, a public sector unit, sought condonation of delay due to obtaining necessary COD clearance. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, recalled the earlier dismissal order and allowed the Miscellaneous Application, restoring the Stay Petitions and Appeals to their original numbers. Subsequently, with the consent of both sides, the Tribunal decided to hear and dispose of the Appeals without pre-deposit of the demands, given that the Appeals themselves could be addressed on that day. The appellant's representatives argued that the Adjudicating Commissioner had demanded Service Tax on the entire value of the contracted amount, emphasizing that only a small percentage (1.8%) of the total amount represented consulting engineering services. They requested a remand to the Adjudicating Authority to provide evidence supporting the proportionality of the demanded amount. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, set aside the impugned Orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to allow the appellant to produce necessary evidence to bifurcate the amount attributable to consulting engineering service charges and quantify the Service Tax accordingly. The appellant was to be granted a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before new Orders were passed, with all Appeals allowed by way of remand. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open Court, ensuring a fair and transparent process.

---