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 overturns service tax demand order due to procedural errors</h1> <h3>M/s Neccon Power & Infra Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh</h3> M/s Neccon Power & Infra Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh - TMI Issues involved:1. Appeal against de-novo adjudication order confirming demand of service tax for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09.2. Dispute regarding service tax liability on payments made to subcontractors and sardars.3. Contention on penalty imposition and extended period of limitation.4. Compliance with Tribunal directions in the remand proceedings.5. Allegations exceeding the scope of Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the adjudication.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against a de-novo adjudication order confirming a service tax demand for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. The appellant, engaged in providing services to Assam State Electricity Board, faced allegations of non-payment of service tax on subcontractor services. The Ld. Commissioner initially dropped the demand, but a subsequent Tribunal order led to a de-novo order confirming the demand, which the appellant contested.2. The dispute revolved around the service tax liability on payments made to subcontractors and sardars. The appellant argued that certain payments were made through sardars and subcontractors, which were not subject to service tax as per legal provisions. The appellant also highlighted discrepancies in the taxable amounts considered by the Department, supporting their claims with CA certificates.3. The contention on penalty imposition and the invocation of the extended period of limitation was raised. The appellant strongly contested the penalty imposition, arguing against the validity of the penalty and the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department.4. The compliance with Tribunal directions in the remand proceedings was a crucial issue. The Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to examine the computation of tax payable on amounts received by the appellant and paid to subcontractors. However, the Ld. Commissioner's order was found to have exceeded the scope of the Tribunal's directions, leading to a lack of proper examination of relevant evidence and contracts.5. The allegations were found to exceed the scope of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the adjudication. The Ld. Commissioner's order was deemed to have traveled beyond the allegations made in the SCN, failing to address key aspects such as payment details, nature of services, and contractual agreements. The order was set aside due to the absence of legal liability on the appellant as a service recipient for service tax payments not made by subcontractors.Overall, the Tribunal found the de-novo order passed by the Ld. Commissioner to be illegal and unsustainable, setting aside the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty, and allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 