Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Cma Cgm East & South India P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 25 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/S/40990/2013 & ST/41360/2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 140/2013 (MST) dated 21.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. CMA CGM East & South India P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri Hariharan, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 25.04.2014 Date of Decision: 25.04.2014 Final Order No.40316/2014 After hearing the matter at length, I find that the appeal may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly, after dispensing with stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
2. The appellant is engaged in providing Steamer Agent Service and other Export Logistic Services They are registered with the service tax authority under the category of Steamer Agent Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Goods Transport Agency Service and Business Support Service. A show-cause notice dated 22.10.2008 was issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise proposing demand of an amount of Rs.27,47,545/- being the excess amount adjusted suo moto, amounting to non-payment of service tax along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority modified the demand of tax and confirmed an amount of Rs.18,26,178/- being the excess credit adjusted suo moto, amounting to non-payment of service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest and penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.
3. The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that inadvertently they had shown excess input credit during the month of May 2007 to August 2007 which was suo moto adjusted for the subsequent months. It is submitted that there is no short-payment of tax liability. He further submits that they filed a revised Consolidated CENVAT Credit Utilization Statement before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected on the ground that the said statement was not authenticated by the appellant or certified by a Chartered Accountant. He fairly submits that they have filed the Chartered Accountants certificate before this Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the appellant had not filed any revised return against excess adjustment of the credit. He submits that there is no provision for suo moto adjustment of the credit which is amounting to short-payment of tax liability.
5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the appellant had filed revised Consolidated CENVAT Credit Utilization Statement before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was not considered on the ground that the said statement was not authenticated by the appellant or certified by a Chartered Accountant. In this context, the learned Chartered Accountant submits that he has himself signed the Chartered Accountants certificate which is filed along with the appeal. He submits that there is no short-payment of tax liability and therefore the matter may be remanded for reconsideration. In this context, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the unit has already been closed and therefore sufficient safeguard of the revenue should be considered.
6. In view of that, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after considering the revised Consolidated CENVAT Credit Utilization Certificate certified by the Chartered Accountant. The learned Chartered Accountant undertakes to cooperate with the Commissioner (Appeals) during denovo proceedings. Considering the submission of the learned AR for Revenue, I direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.K. Das) Judicial Member Rex 2