2022 (5) TMI 425 - AT - Service Tax

Inconsistent Decisions on Exemptions Remanded for Consistency

M/s J.B. Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, Commissioner of CGST & CX, Nagpur -I.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding inconsistency in deciding show cause notices on exemptions claimed. It noted varying ... Eligibility of exemption from service tax - activity of construction of residential and commercial complex - case of appellant is that the department has been inconsistent in deciding the issue raised in the Show Cause Notices - HELD THAT:- As submitted by the Ld. Counsel the orders are inconsistent inasmuch as the same issue is allowed for a certain period and disallowed for some other period. On a query by the Bench, the Ld. Counsel submits that the legal position on the issue passed negatively is not changed. Therefore, department is not free to hold a different view on the same issues for different periods. It is also found that wherever the authorities have allowed the claim of appellants, department have not appealed against the same and therefore the issues allowed for that period attained finality. In the interest of justice, the matter should go back to the original authority to pass suitable orders in a consistent manner not interfering with the benefit already extended to the appellants - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Inconsistency in deciding show cause notices regarding exemption claimed.Analysis:The case involved six appeals filed by the appellant related to the construction of residential and commercial complexes. The Revenue issued show cause notices on various grounds, including the eligibility for claimed exemptions. However, the adjudicating authorities took different stands on the same issues during different periods, allowing the issue in one period and disallowing it in another. The appellant argued that all disputes raised against them had been settled in their favor during different periods, and no appeals were filed. The Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the inconsistency in the orders. The Tribunal noted that the same issue was allowed for certain periods and disallowed for others, leading to a lack of consistency. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the legal position on the negatively passed issue remained unchanged. Additionally, it was observed that whenever the authorities allowed the appellant's claim, the Revenue did not appeal, resulting in the finality of those issues for that period. The Tribunal concluded that all issues raised in the show cause notices had been resolved in favor of the appellant at some point. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the original authority to pass orders consistently without interfering with the benefits already granted to the appellant.In the final decision, all the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the original authority based on the above findings. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in decision-making and ensuring that benefits rightfully granted to the appellant were not unjustly interfered with.