Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri K. A. Mohandas vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. & S.T., Cochin on 29 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE COURT - I Application Involved: ST/Stay/26429/2013 in ST/26103/2013-DB Appeal Involved: ST/26103/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.15/2013/ST dated 13/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin] Shri K. A. Mohandas Appellant Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Cochin Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. P. M. Mammen, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 29/07/2013 Date of Decision: 29/07/2013 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 25730 / 2013 Order per : B.S.V. MURTHY It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of appellant that in this case, there is no need to go into the issue on taxability of service etc. since even though show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and Shri P. Sasidharan Nair requiring to show-cause as to why service tax of Rs. 5,15,32,519/- should not be demanded, in the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed without specifying who is liable to pay the same and if both the persons are assumed to be liable to pay, then the amount / percentage also has not been specified. Further it was also submitted that in the case of penalty also name of the persons and the amount or percentage has not been specified. The Commissioner should have specifically indicated as to whom the demand has been made and what was the percentage. In the absence of such crucial details in the impugned order, the same cannot be considered in the appeal at all.
2. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of considered opinion that the matter is required to be remanded so that the Commissioner shall quantify the tax liability of the persons separately and also penalty separately. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to take up fresh adjudication of all the issues. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. We also make it clear that since we have not at all discussed the issue of tax liability, all the issues are kept open.
3. The stay application and the appeal are disposed of in above terms.
(Order Pronounced and Dictated in Open Court) (ANIL CHOUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V.MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/