Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Nimbus Communications Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 3 February, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Appln.No.ST/S/99372/13 APPEAL No.ST/89508/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.46/ST-II/RS/2013 dated 20/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Nimbus Communications Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Respondent Mumbai Appearance:
Shri.Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for appellant Shri.R.K.Das, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 03/02/2015 Date of Decision : 03/02/2015 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. The stay petition is taken up for disposal. After hearing both the sides for considerable time on the stay petition, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of as it lies in a narrow compass; accordingly, after allowing the application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount involved, we take up the appeal for disposal.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, we find that this is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, vide Final Order dated 07/11/2012, this Bench remanded the matter back to adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. In the denovo adjudication it was pointed out by the learned Counsel that they had filed replies dated 26/11/2012 & 23/01/2013 wherein they attached voluminous records including that the details of services rendered by them, did not suppress any documents and their calculation of service tax; along with Chartered Accountants certificate which was not considered in its correct perspective. We find from the records that the adjudicating authority has not considered these evidences which were submitted by the appellant during the course of denovo proceedings; it is noted that in the impugned order in para 28, cursorily dismissed the plea, by recording that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidences to substantiate their claim; while in para 8, where the submissions of the appellants were recorded, the adjudicating authority specifically states that the documents are attached. We find that summarary dismissal of the submissions by the adjudicating authority as to no submission of documentary evidence, seems to be incorrect. Be that as it may, the issue involved in this case is to be appreciated from the facts on records which were produced by the appellant during the denovo proceedings. In our considered view that adjudicating authority should be given another chance to reconsider the entire issue. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case keeping all issues open we set aside the impugned order remand the proceedings back to original authority with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh on the basis of the submissions made by the appellant earlier and also in the submissions that will be made after following principles of natural justice. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issue afresh.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3