Midas (Formerly Mareech Advertising ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 339/2011 dated 06/05/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

MIDAS (Formerly Mareech Advertising Pvt. Ltd.) No.19, 5th Main, Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore  560 046 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore 1st To 5th Floor, TTMC Building, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur Bangalore  560 071 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Pradyumna G.H., Advocate No. 244, 1st Cross, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 2nd Block Bangalore  560 085 Karnataka For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 11/03/2015 Date of Decision: 11/03/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20592 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

Both sides agree that the matter should be remanded. In this case the show-cause notice was issued simply mentioning the amount payable without specifying the services provided and taxability aspect. The original adjudicating authority taking note of the fact that appellants had not replied to the show-cause notice and had not appeared for personal hearings passed an order once again without discussing the taxability of the services and the method adopted by the Revenue for arriving of tax not paid. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee was represented and based on the representations made by them and the data given by them the impugned order has been passed. However while doing so the claim made by them that they were liable to pay only Rs. 2148/- (Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) has not been considered. This claim has been rejected on the ground that no documentary evidence has been produced. I am not satisfied with the approach of both the lower authorities. It is felt that the matter requires detailed consideration in the hands of original authority and therefore without going into any of the issues involved, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority so that the matter can be properly adjudicated after appreciating facts and evidences and record available with the department as well as that can be provided by the appellant. Learned counsel undertakes to cooperate with the adjudication process so that the delay is not caused and appellant is properly represented.

2. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case. (Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss