Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (6) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee suppressed the value of taxable service pertaining to the year 1999-2000. In the absence of the details mentioned in the second show cause-notice with regard to suppression, we have to rely only on the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax to ascertain what was the nature of suppression referred to issue second show-cause notice. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal be fore the Tribunal alleging that there was in fact no suppression of material before the Department and issue of second show cause notice was not valid in the eye of law. - Tribunal has not considered these facts nor given any finding as to whether the second show-cause notice is valid in the eye of law, but merely referr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice for a sum of Rs. 5,43,092/- was confirmed with regard to the service tax the period October 1998 to March 2001 and interest of Rs. 2,26,689/- was also confirmed with regard to the Service tax for the period October 1998 to March 2001 and interest of Rs. 2,26,689/- was also confirmed by virtue of Section 75 of the Finance Act (for short the Act') 1994 and for the delayed payment of service tax. However, imposition of penalty under Sections 76-77 of the said Act was dropped. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued on 3-4-2003 by he Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, on the ground that there had been suppression of value of taxable service with an intention to escap payment of Service Tax amounting to R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent before the Tribunal, which is furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of his submission. 4. On consideration of the submission on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that the matter requires to be re considered by the Tribunal for the simple reason that the entire dispute has been adjudicated, without making any reference to the allegation of suppression regarding the value of taxable service, the nature of suppression and other details, the Tribunal, simply by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court has allowed the appeal. 5. In the instant case, we note that, after the adjudication of the first show cause notice, which culminated in an order passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in order to give a finding with regard to Validity of the second show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner. In the absence of there being any application of mind on this issue, the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal of the assessee by merely relying on the Apex Court's decision. The Tribunal could not have passed such an order by merely referring to a precedent and dispose of the matter without laying any foundation for the same in the form of narrating the facts and giving reasons and only by relying on the basis of the facts narrated and the contentions urged by the counsel. 6. In fact, it is only in a reasoned order that the application of mind of a judicial or a quasi judicial authority would become apparent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee partially. It 'as held that the Tribunal must record its reasons in support of its claims. In fact, even when the appellate authority affirmed a decision of a lower body, it should give its own reasons and atleast, it, should be indicated clearly by the appellate authority that it is accepting the reasons given by the lower authority. In the case of Travancore Rayons v. Union of India [1978 (2) E.L.T. J378 (S.C.) = AIR 1971 SC 862], which is a case regarding assessment of Excise Duty when the Central Government in exercise of its revisional powers had affirmed the collectors decision by a non-speaking order, the Apex Court stressed that the appellate body should give its own reasons even when it was affirming the order of a lo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates