TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case due to lack of reasoning, grants waiver for pre-deposit, stresses need for evidence in tax disputes.</h1> <h3>NATIONAL TRADES AND AGENCIES Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COCHIN</h3> NATIONAL TRADES AND AGENCIES Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COCHIN - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 329 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Pre-deposit of service tax amount2. Commissioner (Appeals) not giving finding on confirmed amount3. Deduction from the value of taxable service4. Reimbursable expenses not forming part of taxable service5. Lack of evidence by assessee6. Impugned order not a speaking order7. Remand to Commissioner (Appeals)8. Granting waiver of pre-deposit9. Stay application allowedAnalysis:1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a service tax amount of Rs. 2,19,397. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any finding on the confirmed amount in the order but accepted the deduction of Rs. 6,14,750 from the taxable service value for the financial years 2000-2004. The appellant contended that various reimbursable expenses should not be considered part of the taxable service, citing a previous Tribunal case. The appellant requested a waiver of the pre-deposit amount.2. The learned DR supported the Original authority's findings, stating that the assessee did not present any evidence to support the relief sought for the amounts in question.3. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions and the impugned order. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) merely reproduced the Order-in-Original regarding the deduction from the taxable service without providing a detailed explanation. As the impugned order was not a speaking order, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's prayer for a waiver of the pre-deposit amount. The stay application was granted, ensuring no recovery of the amount even after 180 days from the order's issue. The appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.This judgment highlights the importance of providing detailed reasoning in orders, the need for evidence to support claims, and the possibility of remanding cases for further review when essential details are lacking in lower authorities' decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
