M/S. Dalhousie Jute Company vs Commr. Of Service Tax, Kolkata

(Arising out of the Order-in-Original No.52/Commr./ST/KOL/2013-14 dated-31/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, , Kolkata)

For approval and signature of: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?

M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE Sri S.P. Siddhanta, Consultant FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri A. K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION: 24/03/2015

ORDER NO. FO/A/75201/2015 Per DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.50.70 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act,1994.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri S.P. Siddhanta for the applicant submits that the demand relates to availing of GTA service of Inter-State Consignment Transport, Ocean Trade, Railway freight etc. In support of his contention, he has furnished a Chartered Accountant Certificate showing the break up of Service Tax demand confirmed against them by the adjudicating authority. He submits that major portion of the demand i.e. Rs.45.44 Lakh relates to consignment transports. He submits that in the said case, the transporter has discharged the Service Tax and the Service Tax payment is reflected in each and every consignment note issued by the transporters. Similarly, in relation to ocean freight involving the demand of Rs.2,29,194/-, necessary evidences were produced by them before the adjudicating authority. He submits that even though all these documents were placed before the Ld. Commissioner for scrutiny but the same were not scrutinized and the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand against them. He fairly accepts that they have not produced the Chartered Accountant Certificate dated-31/12/2014, now produced before this Tribunal whereby the reconciliation statement furnished before the Ld. Commissioner, has been duly certified.

3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. He fairly accepts that the evidences were not scrutinized in detail by the adjudicating authority. He also submits that the re-conciliation statement in the form of annexures to the reply to the show cause notice though submitted, were not supported by the Chartered Accountants certificate, which now they have produced before this Tribunal. He has no objection in remanding the case for verification of the documents by the adjudicating authority.

4. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.

5. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand mostly involving GTA services on the ground that the appellant could not place sufficient evidences to establish the fact that the respective transporters had discharged service tax. Similarly, also in the case of other freight charges, like ocean freight and Railway freight. The Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant on the other hand, categorically claims that before the Ld. Commissioner sample copies of consignment notes & other documents indicating payment of Service Tax by the respective transporters have been produced; also the evidences relating to Railway Freight and ocean freight were placed before the Commissioner. It is their submission they are fully equipped with all documents for the entire period which they can place before the Commissioner for scrutiny. In support of their claim, the Ld. Consultant has placed a chartered accountants certificate issued by M/s. Bharat D. Sarawgee & Co. dated-31/12/2014 before this Tribunal. The said certificate was not placed before the Ld. Adjudicating authority, a fact not disputed by the Ld. Consultant. We find that the evidences which now the Ld. Consultant placed before this Tribunal needs scrutiny/verification. Thus, considering the request of the Ld. Consultant to which the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has no objection, we remand the case to the Ld. Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh after analyzing the evidences on record.Needless to mention that reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the appellant. All issues are kept open. The appeal is allowed by way of Remand. S.P. disposed off.

(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/- 09/04/15 Sd/-09/04/2015 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

K.B/-

Service Tax Appeal No. 75607/2014

4