Payment of Service
CESTAT, CHENNAI BENCH
Arun Textiles (P) Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
P.G.CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 908 OF 2007
STAY ORDER NO. 751 OF 2007
S/PD APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2007
AND S/APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2007
JULY 25, 2007
Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Payment of service tax - Period, January, 2005 to April, 2005 - Assessee had received goods transport agency’s service - It paid service tax thereon after availing benefit of abatement of duty under Notification No. 32 of 2004-ST - However, requisite service provider’s declaration submitted by assessee to avail said benefit of abatement was found defective by adjudicating authority - Assessee did not made any attempt before him to cure said defected which resulted in confirmation of differential amount of service tax - Assessee’s attempt to cure those defects before appellate authority was also remained unsuccessful - However, before instant Tribunal, assessee have sought to establish by producing additional documents, that conditions for availing benefit of Notification No.32 of 2004-ST had been fully satisfied - Whether in such circumstances instant case was to be remanded to original authority for fresh decision - Held, yes [Para 3]
The assessee had received services of
goods transport agency during period January April, 2005 - It paid service tax
on freight incurred by it after availing benefit of abatement of duty under
notification No.32 of 2004-ST. The
assessee was required under said Notification to produce the service provider’s
declaration to satisfy the specified conditions thereon. Though said declaration was produced by the
assessee, the same was not accepted by the original authority and, consequently,
the above abatement was denied to the assessee resulting in demand of
differential amount of service tax.
Before the first appellate authority, the assessee filed revised
declarations of the service provider but the same were also rejected.
On appeal :
The additional documents had been filed
by the assessee in their endeavour to establish that the conditions of
Notification No.32 of 2004-ST have been duly complied with and that it was
entitled to the benefit of abatement.
It appeared from the records that the defects in the service provider’s
declarations, pointed out by the lower authorities, were not serious. Before the original authority, there was no
attempt by the assessee to cure these defects.
Their attempt to cure the defects before the appellate authority was not
successful. That attempt was not
complete either. Before the instant
Tribunal, the assessee have sought to establish, by producing additional
documents, that conditions of notification No.32 of 2004-ST had been fully
satisfied. However, it was viewed that
the assessee should do this appropriately before the original authority. Accordingly, the orders of both the
authorities were to be set aside and the instant case was to be remanded to the
original authority for fresh decision.
[Para 3]