Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs M/S Riya Travels & Tours (India) Pvt Ltd on 3 December, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/1863/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 86/2012 dated 27/01/2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, CALICUT CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673001. Appellant(s) Versus M/s RIYA TRAVELS & TOURS (INDIA) PVT LTD KANNANKANDY CHAMBERS, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, ARAYADATHUPALAM, KOZHIKODE-4 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. For the Appellant Ms. Preetha Mahadevan, Advocate For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 03/12/2015 Date of Decision: 03/12/2015 CORAM :
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22135 / 2015 PER ASHOK K. ARYA Both the parties have been heard.
2. The Revenue has come in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), where the Order-in-Appeal holds that the impugned Order-in-Original confirming the said demand of service tax is set aside, the demand being time-barred.
3. Learned A.R., Shri Pakshirajan on behalf of Revenue points out that the demand is not time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued in time i.e. on 25-4-2007, within one year of filing of Service Tax Return (date of filing Return is on 27.4.2006). The Revenue argues that the Order-in-Appeal, therefore, wrongly set aside the demand taking the plea of time-bar though the demand was confirmed by the Order-in-Original passed by the Joint Commissioner.
4. The respondent, namely M/s Riya Travels & Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd. represented by the learned advocate, Ms. Preetha Mahadevan argues that the Order-in-Appeal has not examined and considered their all the pleadings and the arguments and the case, therefore, deserves to be decided taking into consideration of all their arguments raised by them. She argues that though demand is strictly not time-barred, it deserves to be decided only after examination and consideration of their all the arguments placed now and also earlier before the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. After considering the facts on record and the submissions of both the parties, it is clear that the demand is not time-barred as the show-cause notice had rightly been issued within the period of one year from the date of filing of the Service Tax Return which is the requirement under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal passed on the sole ground of time-bar is hereby set aside. However, as the lower appellate authority has not examined the other arguments raised by the respondent namely, M/s Riya Travels & Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd., the matter deserves to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh examination and consideration of all the arguments of the respondent to arrive at a fresh decision.
6. Considering the above discussions, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits and after again giving sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and submission of their pleadings. It is directed the matter be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) not later than within four months of receipt of this order. The appeal is decided in the above terms.
(Pronounced in open court) (ASHOK K. ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/