2023 (10) TMI 883 - AT - Service Tax

Case Remanded for Reassessment of Appellant's Service Tax Liability: Abatement and Cenvat Credit Verification Under Scrutiny

The Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for further verification of the Appellant's statements regarding Service Tax liability. The ... Principles of natural justice - facts not verified properly - appellant have claimed abatement and also have taken the Cenvat Credit and utilized the same towards payment of Service Tax - HELD THAT:- The Appellant claims that since they were not put to notice on this count, they could not address the same while filing their reply before the Adjudicating Authority - Since the factual details are required to be properly verified, the Appeal has to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Service Tax liability for Erection Commissioning and Installation service, Commercial or Industrial Construction, Maintenance or Repair, Execution of Works Contract Service, availing abatement and Cenvat Credit simultaneously, proper consideration of details by lower authorities.Summary:Service Tax Liability: The Appellant, providing various services, was found to have not fully discharged their Service Tax liability after scrutiny of ST-3 Returns. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the Appellant simultaneously availed abatement and utilized Cenvat Credit towards payment of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, leading the Appellant to approach the Tribunal.Contentions: The Appellant submitted separate statements to the lower authority for pure service contracts without abatement but with Cenvat Credit, and for composite contracts without Cenvat Credit. The Appellant argued that these details were not properly considered by the lower authorities.Arguments: The Learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authority, stating that the Appellant contravened provisions by availing both abatement and Cenvat Credit simultaneously.Observations: After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Tribunal noted the submissions made by the Appellant in response to the Show Cause Notice, detailing the contracts where abatement or Cenvat Credit was availed.Verification: The Tribunal observed that no findings were provided by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the verification of the statements submitted by the Appellant.Remand: Considering the need for proper verification of factual details, the Tribunal remanded the Appeal to the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority was directed to verify the specific statements filed by the Appellant and pass a detailed order on the matter.Nature of Service: The Adjudicating Authority categorized the service provided by the Appellant as 'completion and finishing services' under Commercial Construction Service, stating that the benefit of notification would not be available. The Appellant claimed lack of notice on this issue.Directions: The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to verify the submitted statements, allow the Appellant to provide documentary evidence regarding the nature of services, and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice. The Authority was instructed to complete the proceedings within four months from the date of the Order.