Tribunal Overturns Unjust Order; Remands Case for Fair Review of CENVAT Credit Claims in Service Tax Dispute.

The Tribunal set aside the original authority's order, which unjustly ignored the appellant's CENVAT credit utilization for service tax payment. The matter was remanded for de-novo adjudication, instructing the original authority to verify the appellant's claims and issue a speaking order within 60 days, ensuring a fair hearing. All issues and contentions remain open.

---

---

Issues involved: Dispute regarding service tax liability for the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011, utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax, rejection of CENVAT credit payment by the original authority.

Summary:

Issue 1: Dispute over service tax liability
The appellant, engaged in broadcasting services, had availed credit of service tax paid on input services and used it for service tax payment. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 66,78,141 for the period in question. The appellant claimed to have remitted the remaining service tax liability after utilizing CENVAT credit, providing a detailed reconciliation statement. The original authority did not accept the payment through CENVAT credit, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Rejection of CENVAT credit payment
The appellant contended that the original authority did not consider their claims and supporting documents regarding the utilization of CENVAT credit. The appellant requested a remand for de-novo adjudication to consider the evidence. The Assistant Commissioner supported the original authority's findings but had no objection to a remand.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the original authority unjustly ignored the payment through CENVAT credit. Despite evidence of available CENVAT credit, the authority failed to verify the appellant's claims properly. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had discharged a significant portion of the service tax liability through credit balance. The original authority's disregard of the appellant's claims was deemed contrary to law. As there was no indication of incorrect claims by the appellant, the demand could lead to double taxation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de-novo adjudication to verify the appellant's claims and issue a speaking order. The appellant was granted a fair hearing, and the original authority was directed to complete the adjudication within 60 days. All issues and contentions were left open.

---