9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der a complete finding with regard to applicability of a taxing provision and sustainability of the demand in the show cause notice qua rendering of service. Therefore, we admit this Appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the portion of the impugned order dated 28.05.2013 upholding the demand of service tax on the amount paid by the Appellants to the foreign party for the design services provided during the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 is correct in law? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the portion of the impugned order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal upholding that there was no evidence to show that the design services in question were received prior to 18.04.2006 or prior to 01.06.2007 is correct in law especially when the demand of service tax itself is for the amount paid by the Appellants for the design services for which invoices were raised by the provider of service during the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the portion of the impugned order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal upholding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to applicability of a taxing provision to the services rendered. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, would submit that this is an attempt to reappreciate and reappraise the factual material. The Tribunal has not observed that the record does not indicate any invoices raised or bills, but that the Assessee has failed to prove that the services as noted in these invoices were factually rendered prior to 01.06.2007. It is in that regard the Tribunal insists on contemporaneous evidence being produced. Such insistence cannot be said to be erroneous or much less perverse. Therefore, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and it deserves to be dismissed. 6. With the assistance of Mr.Sridharan and Mr.Rao we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and equally that of the Adjudicating Authority stated to be the order-in-original. We have also perused some of other annexures to this Appeal paper book. The notice to show cause was issued to the Assessee and which is forming part of the order-in-original dated 25.10.2011. That is on the footing that one M/s Lear Automotive India Pvt.Ltd. and registered with the Central Excise Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 are referred to and their date of enforcement is stated to be 19.04.2006. The services that are referred to in Rule 3(i) and (ii) of the aforesaid Rules are being treated as performed in India and hence, liable to service tax in hands of recipient. The Adjudicating Authority then refers to the Rules and arrives at the conclusion which is emphasized by Mr.Sridharan, namely, the service tax is being demanded on the payments made after 16.06.2006 and therefore, reliance by the Assessee on the provisions is stated to be misplaced. 9. We find that once the Adjudicating Authority while passing the order-in-original proceeds on the assumption that there is material on record with regard to rendering of services, but the controversy is whether the tax or taxable event occurred after the notification or rule being brought into force or not, then, the Tribunal was obliged in law to consider this aspect and in its entirety. It ought to have then commented upon the presumption or the basis on which the Adjudicating Authority proceeded. If the Adjudicating Authority proceeded on an erroneous basis and there was indeed no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x is liable to be paid on the said services and which have been availed of prior to the date of notification or rule coming into force, then, there was some material on record and in the form of at least Audit Report. These documents and in comparison to the contents of the Ledger Account, dates of bills/ invoices should have been considered and thereafter, a proper and complete finding should have been rendered by the Tribunal. 12. We find and repeatedly that the Tribunal in undue haste and uncalled hurry proceeds to pass the orders which have to be often set aside by this Court. This Court has repeatedly reminded the Tribunal that it is the last fact finding authority and which the Assessee and the Revenue approaches so as to have complete adjudication on facts and law. In these circumstances it was bounden duty of the Tribunal to have referred to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and in their entirety. It may be that in all matters and in all cases the Tribunal is not required to pass a lengthy order. It is also equally true that on some occasions few words speak the entire truth. It could be that an efficient and experienced Judicial Officer does not require many word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
