2018 (7) TMI 427 - AT - Service Tax

Revenue appeal allowed, overturning Commissioner decision on 'rent-a-cab operator service' suppression

Commr. of Central Excise, Guwahati Versus Shri Manik Choudhury

The Revenue's appeal was allowed, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision due to the Respondent's alleged suppression of material facts regarding ... Rent-a-cab scheme operator service - supply of vehicles for hire to service receivers such as NEEPCO on periodic contract/agreement basis - the Comm(A) proceeded on the basis of the letter dated 16 March 2004 of the assessee - suppression of facts - Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order had not considered the reply of the Respondent in response to the letter dated 16 March 2004 of the dept - It is perceived from the said letter that the Respondent has not disclosed the service rendered by him to the department. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside - service taxable under the head Rent-a-cab scheme operator service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. Issues:Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. II/SH/CE(A)/GHY/IO dated 03.12.2010 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, where the Respondent was alleged to have failed to discharge service tax under the category of 'Rent-a-cab service' operator for the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 October 2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Respondent falls under 'rent-a-cab scheme operator service' and service tax is leviable but allowed the appeal on limitation grounds. The Revenue contended that the Respondent intentionally suppressed material facts regarding rendering service under the 'rent-a-cab operator service' category. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the Respondent's reply in response to the department's letter dated 16 March 2004, where the Respondent stated he was neither the owner of any 'tourist vehicle' nor a 'tour operator.'The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the letter dated 16 March 2004 of the Respondent, where it was stated that the Department was aware of the activities of the appellant since 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Department did not take further action despite being informed by the appellant about his activities. The Revenue argued that the Respondent did not disclose the service rendered by him in his letter dated 31 March 2004, thus intentionally suppressing material facts. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the order of the adjudicating authority.In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the Respondent's alleged suppression of material facts regarding the rendering of service under the 'rent-a-cab operator service' category. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was upheld.