Corporate Events vs Commissioner Of Service Tax

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Application No. ST/ors-1555,1556/11 APPEAL No.ST/121,122/10-Mum ST/CO/104&105/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/STC/BR/09-10 dated 11/06/2009 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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?

====================================================== Corporate Events Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Respondent Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Appellant Vs. Corporate Events Respondent

Appearance: Shri- Bharat Raichendani, Advocate for Appellant Shri- K.S. Mishra, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 13/08/2015 Date of Decision : 13/08/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

All these appeals are disposed of by a common order as they arising out from the very same Order-in-Original No. 03/STC/BR/09-10 dated 11/06/2009.

2. Revenue as well as the appellant are in appeal against Order-in-Original No. 03/STC/BR/09-10 dated 11/06/2009. The appellant assessee has also filed cross objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. The issue involved in this case is regarding whether the appellant assessee has rendered the services which may fall under the category of Event Management Services.

5. It is the case of the appellant that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in as much that the appellants herein did not file the reply to the show cause notice. He would submit that the issue is not properly argued before the lower authorities and it has to be charged on record that appellant has not rendered the services which may fall under the category of Event Management Services. He would try to take us to the merits of the case.

6. On the appeals filed by the revenue, it is the case of the Revenue that the adjudicating authority has not correctly calculated the penalty imposable under section 76.

7. On deeper perusal of impugned order, we do find that the adjudicating authority has recorded the non-filing of reply to the show cause notice. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority should have given another opportunity to the appellant herein for filing the reply and should have followed the principle of natural justice before confirming a substantial amount as demand of service tax. In our view, the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground only the said order needs to be set aside and the case be remanded the files of the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

8. Without expressing any opinion on the much extended case, dipping all the issues seeing opinion, we set aside the impugned and remand to the matter back the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh.

9. The appellant is directed to file his detailed reply to show cause notice within a period of four weeks and definitely not later than 1st October 2015, to the adjudicating authority, on receipt such reply from the appellant assessee, the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the issue after following the principles of natural justice.

10. It is noted from the record that appellant assessee has deposited the entire amount of service tax and the interest thereof, we direct appellant assessee not to apply for refund of the amount pending disposal of the matter by the adjudicating authority.

11. All the appeals are disposed of by way of remand and the Cross Objection filed is also disposed of.

(Dictated in Court)

(C.J. Mathew)

Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran)

Member (Judicial)

akp 1 4 APPEAL No.ST/121,122/10-Mum