Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shiva Analyticals India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore on 20 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE Final Order No. 22085 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/27975/2013 in ST/27619/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/27619/2013-DB [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 183/2013 dated 30/05/2013 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax , BANGALORE ] M/s Shiva Analyticals India Ltd Plot No. 24D, (P) & 34 d KIADB Industrial Area, Hoskote BANGALORE 562114. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, Above BMTC BUS STAND, DOMLUR BANGALORE - 560071. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE #452, 1ST FLOOR, 18TH MAIN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560041 For the Appellant Mr. Mohd yusuf, 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: 20/11/2014 Date of Decision: 20/11/2014 Per B.S.V.MURTHY Synopsis submitted by learned counsel is reproduced below :
1.1. Appellant is a provider of taxable service under the category of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services. The issue that is to be considered in this appeal, whether Cenvat credit utilized in excess of 20% for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 and in excess of 8% for the year 2008-09, on the assumption that the appellant is providing exempted services. Even though categorically and with documents the appellant have contended that they are not providing any exempted service, an amount of Rs. 20,03,985/- towards Cenvat Credit has been disallowed.
1.2. Further, a demand of Rs. 6,30,508/- has been made on the ground that there is escaped turnover.
1.3. The other issue involved in the OIO and remanded back relates to Cenvat Credit availed without proper documents which has been remanded to the original authority by the Commissioner (Appeals). In all of the above larger period of time invoked has been challenged.
1.4. Total demand being the Cenvat credit disallowed as per the Order-in-Original on different issues for the period 2006-2008, is Rs. 43,86,905/- and the penalty of Rs. 2000/- under 77 and Rs. 42,98,721/- under section 78.
1.5. On appeal, the Commissioner of service tax appeals, by his order-in-appeal confirmed the demand of Rs. 27,24,579/- and whereas remanded the issue in respect of the disallowance of Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 16,62,326/-
1.6. A sum of Rs. 4,64,717/- being the partial accepted amounts deposited has been appropriated in the OIO. Further a sum of Rs. 1,86,158/- towards interest has been appropriated.
1.7. A sum of Rs. 6,37,288/- towards the service tax credit and Rs. 5,37,590/- towards penalty was deposited as per Honble High court Order in W.P. No. 8641-8642/2013 dt 25.2.2013.
1.8. Accordingly, out of the present demand of Rs. 27,24,579/- the appellant has paid/pre-deposited a sum of 11,02,005/- towards the service tax and a sum of Rs. 1,86,158/- towards interest and a sum of Rs. 5,37,590/- towards the penalty. The balance amount towards the demand is Rs. 16,22,574/-.
2. The submissions in synopsis would show that the matter is required to be remanded since it is not indicated in the order as to whether it is exempted service that is being provided by the appellants and what is the amount involved and why the appellants should be required to reverse the credit taken as per law. Further, the appellants submitted that they had produced documents supporting the credit taken. In view of the observations above and in view of the fact that the appellants have already deposited a portion of the demand with interest and penalty, the request for remand, in our opinion, is reasonable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request to decide the matter afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case and also pass a well reasoned order after considering all the submissions that may be made by the appellant. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the issues raised before us.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/