2017 (8) TMI 162 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Non-Compliance with Document Submission

Arvind Bhai Patel, HUF And Naina Ben Patel Versus C.C.E & S.T., Bhopal

The Tribunal upheld the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to confirm the demand against the appellants due to their failure to ... Demand on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the direction of the Tribunal in submission of the documents - demand - Held that: - Since the present appeal is for the limited purposes i.e. for submission of the relevant documents, which admittedly were not produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be interfered with at this juncture - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Compliance with Tribunal's direction, Disallowance of Cenvat credit, Failure to produce necessary documents, Upholding of demand by original authority and Commissioner (Appeals), Dismissal of appeals.Analysis:The appellants filed appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax, Bhopal, dated 02.06.2016. This appeal marked the second round of litigation before the Tribunal, with the Tribunal having previously remanded the matter for denovo adjudication to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the appellants to provide further necessary documents as requested by the Department. However, the original authority noted in its order dated 02.12.2014 that the appellants did not comply with the Tribunal's direction to submit the required documents.The adjudication order highlighted that the appellants failed to fulfill the department's requirements as specified in the letter dated 30/01/2014. Despite being directed by the Tribunal, the appellants did not provide the necessary documents, questioning the wisdom of the adjudicating authority. The failure to produce the required documents led to the confirmation of demand against the appellant by the original authority. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the demand, emphasizing the non-compliance with the Tribunal's direction.Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the demand was confirmed by both lower authorities due to the appellant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's direction. As the present appeal solely concerned the submission of relevant documents, which the appellant did not produce before the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) could not be interfered with at that stage. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, stating no infirmity in the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's non-compliance with the Tribunal's direction to provide necessary documents, leading to the confirmation of the demand by both the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). The dismissal of the appeals was grounded in the failure to produce essential documents as required, resulting in the upholding of the demand against the appellant.