2007 (2) TMI 84 - AT - Service Tax

Franchise Service Alleged that appellant is also engaged in Franchise Service and liable to pay service tax on it Appellant contended that no separate amount is received under Franchise Service Held that appellant is required to pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakh

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are required to pre-deposit service tax and penalties under various sections of the Act.
2. Whether the appellants' activity falls under 'franchise services' or 'courier services'.
3. Whether the appellants have a strong case on merits for granting a waiver of pre-deposit based on financial hardship.
4. Whether the appellants have complied with the terms of the order regarding pre-deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were directed to pre-deposit a substantial amount of service tax and penalties under different sections of the Act. The allegation against them was engaging in a commercial concern under a "franchise" agreement with their agents. The appellants argued that their activity should be classified as 'courier services' and that they had only received a single payment inclusive of 'franchise service' charges, not a separate amount for 'franchise services'. They also contested the levy on other illegal amounts and pleaded financial hardship, stating that compliance could lead to the closure of their company with over 2000 employees.

2. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the appellants' argument, stating that the appellants had entered into a 'franchise agreement' with their agents and received separate commission charges under the 'franchise services' category. The DR highlighted that the appellants had paid service tax only on courier services, not on franchise services. The Bench queried the detailed findings on the enormous documents provided, and upon perusal, it was found that detailed findings existed. Considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that at that stage, it couldn't determine a strong case on merits for waiving the pre-deposit amounts to safeguard the Revenue interest.

3. Despite acknowledging the financial hardship raised by the appellants and the offer to pre-deposit a reduced amount, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specified sum within a set timeframe. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the balance service tax and penalty would be waived, and recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also accepted the DR's request for an expedited hearing due to the substantial amount involved, scheduling the final hearing subject to compliance with the stay order.

4. The appellants were instructed to report compliance by a specific date, with the matter set for a final hearing at a later date. Additionally, the Commissioner was directed to file a detailed written submission and counter to the 'Grounds of the Appeal'. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court, emphasizing the importance of complying with the pre-deposit terms to avoid dismissal of the appeal.