By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether an Order-in-Original which does not consider or discuss various decisions cited by assessee and provides no finding regarding invocation of extended period and penalty imposition is a no speaking order? Held, yes. Matter remanded.
Facts:
The appellant was a steamer agent for a shipping company and also used to book space in the ships belonging to other companies and was collecting ocean freight from customers on behalf of the principal as well as from other shipping companies. The department took the view that service tax should have been paid on the ocean freight and confirmed the demand of service tax. The appellant argued that the lower authorities did not consider their submissions on judicial pronouncement available on the same set of facts in the case of Gudwin Logistics vs. CCE – 2010 (18) STR 348 (Tri-Ahmed), also not offered any explanation on invocation of extended period of limitation and levied penalties without any reasoning.
Held:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant in its written submission and in personal hearing relied upon number of case laws which were not at all considered by the lower authorities in the Order-in-Original. In view of the absence of findings in relation to the applicability of services tax, invocation of extended period of limitation, imposition of penalties, the Tribunal remanded the case to pass a considered and well reasoned order.
