CESTAT Remands Transocean Offshore’s Appeals for De Novo Hearing as CIT(A) Rejected Appeal on Limitation w/o Adjudicating on Merits [Read Order]

The appellant Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., challenged two orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) that were dismissed on the ground that they were filed beyond the maximum period allowed and were thereby time-barred.

Also Read: CIT(A) Rejects Appeal without Merit Discussion: ITAT remits Case for Fresh Hearing

In Service Tax Appeal No. 86081 of 2016, the dispute concerned the date of receipt of Order-in-Original dated 24 March 2011. The appellant claimed that it had received the order on 10 February 2012.

This was acknowledged by CIT(A) in its order-in-appeal. Furthermore, the only available date of receipt on record is 10 February 2012, which was also attested by the superintendent of the concerned excise office.

In Service Tax Appeal No. 86077 of 2016, the issue related to the applicability of service tax in the designated areas of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone of India.

Also Read: ITAT Restores Appeal to CIT(A) for De Novo Adjudication, Upholding Timely Filing of the Appeal

The appellant submitted that the territorial jurisdiction of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 was extended through notifications to the designated areas of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, and the period of dispute in the present appeal pertained to this very expansion.

The appellant further relied on the Bombay High Court ruling in the case of Greatship (India) Ltd. vs. CST (2015) and a subsequent order of the Tribunal in Deepwater Pacific 1 Inc. v. Commissioner of Service Tax (2022), where the appeal was allowed and the demand was set aside in similar matters.

The department's authorized representative submitted that if the matter is to be remanded, there would be no objection from the Department’s side.

Also Read: CESTAT finds Impugned Order Cryptic in Nature: Remands Matter for Denovo Adjudication

The bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) observed that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit and as required by Section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should have stated in writing the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision which was not done in this case.Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc vs Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai

Accordingly, both the appeals were set aside and remanded for a de novo hearing

The appellant was represented by Vinay Jain, while the Department was represented by A.P.S. Parihar.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates