'Pleading, a ground of appeal' which appears to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Commissioner (Appeals)
PrintListen to this Article
'Pleading, a ground of appeal' which appears to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Commissioner (Appeals)
We are sharing with you an important judgment of Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi, in the case of Astron Polymers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV [(2014) 52 taxmann.com 372 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] on following issue:
Issue:
Whether a 'pleading, a ground of appeal' can be raised for the first time before Commissioner (Appeals)?
Facts & background:
In the instant case, the Department demanded Service tax for the periods 2005-06 to 2007-08 on Rs. 14, 40,000/- paid by Astron Polymers (P.) Ltd. (“the Appellant”) towards factory rent to one of its director. The Appellant denied liability to Service tax citing that levy was unconstitutional. However, the Appellant failed to submit that it was not a service provider, but was merely recipient of services from one of its directors.
The Department confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Against the Adjudication Order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) specifically contending that rent was being charged by Directors of the Appellant individually and not by the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 (“the Excise Appeal Rules”), rejected the Appellant’s contention on the ground that this was a new ground raised for the first time in the appeal and was not raised either in reply to the Show Cause Notice or during course of the Adjudication proceedings. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi.
Held:
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 5 of the Excise Appeals Rules has no application in the instant case because a contention that the Appellant was not provider of service but was recipient of service is not 'a piece of evidence', it is a 'pleading, a ground of appeal' and goes to root of jurisdiction. Hence, such an additional ground is admissible and ought to be entertained and the Appellant must be called upon to substantiate this plea. Hence, the matter was remanded back for afresh adjudication.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Service Tax | Comments : 0 | Hits : 182
CENVAT CREDIT ON SET TOP BOX INTRODUCTION Service providers have at least a Telephone in their office. They are paying service tax on the telephone charges. The service tax on telephone charges becomes a part of the cost for the service provider. When he collects service tax from the customer it becomes tax on tax which increases the actual rate of tax payment. This phenomenon of tax on tax is called the cascading effect. The government does not want this to happen. The...
NO KRISHI KALYAN CESS ON DEBTORS AS ON 13th MAY’ 2016 (PART -2) Read more at: http://www.casansaar.com/article-submit.htmlThe enabling provisions for KRISHI KALYAN CESS (KKC) are contained in Chapter – VI of Finance Act’ 2016. As per the provisions, KKC shall be applicable at 0.5% on all taxable services and the proceeds of KKC would be exclusively used for financing initiatives relating to improvement of agriculture and welfare of farmers. The Cess will come into force with ...
As you are aware that the Finance Act, 2016 has increased the service tax rate to include a new cess, namely Krishi Kalyan Cess, which is applicable w.e.f. 01/06/2016. The effective rate of service tax for all new services provided after 01/06/2016 shall be as below: Service Tax ...
CENVAT CREDIT AVAILABLE VS CENVAT CREDIT TAKEN ALARMING AMENDMENT IN RULE 6(3) OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES (a) A manufacturer who manufactures two classes of goods namely:- Non exempted goods removed Exempted goods removed Or (b) a provider of output service who provides two classes of services, namely:- Non Exempted Services Exempted Services Shall follow any one of the following options applicable to him namely:- (i) pay an amount equal to 6% ...
Date : 19.03.2016 M/s. ABC LLP ( Service Provider ) M/s. XYZ Limited ( Service Recipient ) Ref: Service Tax on Works Contract and RCM Opinion Before giving opinion on the issues it will be useful to refer the questions related with this transaction. Assume ABC is LLP and XYZ Ltd is Body Corporate. ABC LLP is a sub contractor of XYZ Limited. XYZ Ltd sub contracted Works Contract work as well as Labor work also some time. Both partie...
Comments