2016 (5) TMI 1323 - SC - Service Tax

Supply of tangible goods (STGU) - transfer of possession and effective control of the tankers - import of services - Levy of service tax on reverse charge basis - Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 - extended period of limitation - appeal was filed after a delay of 385 days - vacation of stay sought for - the decision in the case of PETRONET LNG LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2013 (11) TMI 1011 - CESTAT NEW DELHI appealed against - Held that - the respondent is a conglomerate of four Public Sector Undertakings. In view of the fact that the appellant does not appear too keen on an interim order from this Court but was compelled to apply for an interim order, also there is a delay of 385 days in filing the appeal and also the respondent is a conglomerate of four Public Sector Undertakings, the interim stay granted by this Court on 8th January, 2016 ought to be vacated.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Interim stay granted by the Court
3. Prayer for vacation of stay
4. Refund to the respondent

Analysis:

1. *Delay in filing the appeal:*
The appellant filed the appeal after a delay of 385 days, which was noted by the Court. Despite the delay, the appellant later filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) for stay, citing an order from the Delhi High Court directing the refund to the respondent. The delay in filing the appeal was a crucial factor considered by the Court in their decision-making process.

2. *Interim stay granted by the Court:*
Upon filing I.A. No. 6 for stay, an interim stay of the impugned order was granted by the Court on 8th January, 2016. However, the respondent, a conglomerate of four Public Sector Undertakings, later prayed for the vacation of the stay. The Court took into account various factors, including the delay in filing the appeal and the nature of the respondent, in deciding to vacate the interim stay.

3. *Prayer for vacation of stay:*
The respondent requested the vacation of the interim stay granted by the Court on 8th January, 2016. The Court considered the circumstances, including the reluctance of the appellant to seek the interim order and the conglomerate nature of the respondent, in deciding to grant the prayer for vacation of stay.

4. *Refund to the respondent:*
As part of the judgment, the Court ordered the appellant to make the refund to the respondent along with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the Court made it clear that if the appeal is eventually allowed, the respondent would be required to return the amount along with interest up to the date of the final order. This aspect of the judgment ensured fairness and balance in the financial transactions between the parties involved.