Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Canara Bank vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 26 May, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20917 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/2602/2012 in ST/3566/2012-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/3566/2012-DB [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 122/2012 dated 28/09/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , LTU BANGALORE] M/s Canara Bank Executor, Trustee & Taxation Section, Head Office, BgSE Towers, 51, 1st Cross, J.C. Road. BANGALORE - 560027 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax BANGALORE-LTU , 100 FT RING ROAD, JSS TOWERS, BANASHANKARI-III STAGE, BANGALORE 560085 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. S. Ananthan, C.A. For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 26/05/2014 Date of Decision: 26/05/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY Learned C.A. submitted that service tax has been demanded on the ground that the appellants have not paid service tax on the income received by Overseas Banking unit at Noida and commission earned from the activity related to Special Economic Zones (SEZs). Total demand is Rs. 9,53,328/- for the period from April 2009 to March 2010. Learned Chartered Accountant submitted that the entire demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant could not provide breakup of income received during the period when such income was exempted and during the period when it was liable to tax. Even though learned C.A. submitted that he is not contesting the amount in view of the fact that before the original adjudicating authority, Chartered Accountants certificate showing breakup of income which has been produced before us was not produced and because of which demand came to be confirmed, he requested the matter may be remanded at this stage itself. He also submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,90,790/- has been paid by the appellant.
2. In view of the fact that the relevant details which were required for adjudication were not provided to the original adjudicating authority during the adjudication proceedings, and now the same are available, we agree with learned C.A. that appellant deserves another chance. Accordingly, treating the amount deposited by the appellant as sufficient towards pre-deposit, appeal itself is taken up for final disposal and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of all the issues after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/