Tribunal overturns order, grants appeal with consequential benefits. Tax calculation rejection unjustified, notice issued post-limitation.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted the appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law. The rejection of the appellant's tax calculation was deemed unjustified, as no errors were found, and the show cause notice was issued after the limitation period.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-appearance of the appellant despite notices being served, calculation of service tax liability based on third-party information, denial of benefit of exemption notifications, imposition of penalties, and rejection of appellant's calculation of tax liability.

Non-appearance of Appellant:
The appellant failed to appear despite notices being served twice, leading to the hearing proceeding with the assistance of the authorized representative for Revenue. The Tribunal noted the appellant's absence and lack of application for adjournment.

Calculation of Service Tax Liability:
Based on third-party information from the Income Tax Department, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for a differential value in service tax. The appellant contested the notice, arguing that they are registered with the Department and provided works contract services. The Adjudicating Authority did not consider the appellant's submission and calculation, leading to the confirmation of the proposed service tax liability and imposition of penalties.

Denial of Exemption and Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of arbitrary tax demand, denial of exemption notifications, failure to consider tax liability as per books of accounts, and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner recalculated the service tax liability, partially allowing the appeal and confirming a reduced demand along with penalties.

Appellant's Grounds for Appeal:
The appellant appealed before the Tribunal, arguing that benefits under exemption notifications were denied, and tax liability was calculated incorrectly. They contended that their tax calculation was arbitrarily rejected without error findings. The appellant sought the setting aside of the impugned order, including the penalty.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal found that the rejection of the appellant's tax calculation was unjustified, as there were no errors found. The show cause notice was deemed hit by limitation, issued after more than five years. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted the appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

---