2014 (7) TMI 1390 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Orders Reassessment of Construction Service Demands Due to Ignored Notifications.

M/s. P & H Associates Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority after finding that the initial decision confirmed demands on ... Demand of service tax under the category Commercial and Industrial Construction Services - declining to give the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST - alternative claim of the appellant for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 is also declined on the ground that the value of the goods and materials sold was not properly justified by producing evidences. HELD THAT:- Before the Tribunal, appellant produces some records and prima-facie, it shows some kind of sale of materials. This sale of material needs to be gone into detail which can be done only by the adjudicating authority by scrutinizing the records, if any, that may be produced by the appellant. At the same time, we are also deprecate the attitude of the appellant for having not produced these documents before the adjudicating authority and producing the same before us for the first time. In the interest of justice, we find that the adjudicating authority should be given an opportunity to verify and scrutinize the documents as to the claim of the appellant for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD heard a stay petition and decided to dispose of it. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had confirmed demands on the appellant for 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Services' without giving the benefit of certain notifications. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.