2018 (9) TMI 826 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal remands case for service tax liability dispute, granting appellant opportunity for verification

Hydromet (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority. The appellant was granted an ... GTA Service - case of appellant is that the tax liability has indeed been discharged by the service providers and that they are in a position to submit all necessary evidence to establish their case - Held that:- The appellants should be given an opportunity to establish their averment that the service tax liability concerned has already been discharged by the service provider - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Alleged non-payment of service tax liability in respect of GTA service, imposition of penalties under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, request for remand for verification, applicability of case laws and CBEC circular, consideration of evidence.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue revolved around the alleged non-payment of service tax liability in respect of GTA service by the appellant. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice proposing a demand of service tax along with interest and penalties under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority confirmed these proposals and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to file an appeal challenging the order.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the appellants had requested a remand for verification before the Commissioner (Appeals) to demonstrate that the service tax on GTA service had been paid by the service providers. The counsel referenced various Tribunal decisions and a CBEC circular to support their argument. The appellant reiterated this request before the Tribunal, emphasizing their ability to provide evidence showing the discharge of tax liability by the service providers.The Assistant Commissioner representing the respondent supported the impugned order but expressed no objection to a remand for de novo consideration. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions. They acknowledged the relevance of the case laws and CBEC circular cited by the appellant and concluded that the appellants should be given an opportunity to establish that the service tax liability had been discharged by the service provider. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, directing them to provide the appellant with ample opportunity to present their case and submit additional documents if necessary. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair consideration of the evidence presented.