Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Natraj And Venkat Associates vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 24 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/S/95/2011 and ST/129/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 124/2010 (M-ST) dated 11.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, 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?
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. Natraj and Venkat Associates Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant, for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 24.09.2013 Date of Decision: 24.09.2013 Final Order No. 40416/2013 Per P.K. Das The issue involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass hence after disposing the stay application the appeal is taken up for hearing.
2. Head both sides and perused the records.
3. There is a demand of tax of Rs.3,51,453/- for the period October 2006 to June 2007 under the category of Architect Service. The main ground of the learned counsel for the applicant is that tax is not liable to be paid by the sub-contractor in terms of Boards Circular No. B/11/398-TRU dated 7.10.1998 which was withdrawn by Master Circular only on 23.8.2007. In addition to that, he submits that the main contractor has paid the tax and they have submitted a certificate dated 23.4.2010 before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected on the ground that the certificate was not supported by any documents. He fairly submits that they have submitted the supporting documents in the appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the matter is required to be verified both on law and facts. We also notice that the supporting documents in respect of the certificate were not placed before the adjudicating authority. Hence it is appropriate that the appellant should be given an opportunity to place the supporting documents along with the certificate before the original authority. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the appellant on law and facts along with the certificate with supporting documents. Needless to mention that the original authority shall give an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the order.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Mathew John) (P.K. Das)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex