2011 (11) TMI 729 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Interest - while filing the ST-3 returns for the period ending September 2001 and March 2002 and March 2003, the appellant had submitted a covering letter indicating the amounts received by them from UNDP for rendering services and had also claimed exemption under Notification No. 48/98 dated 24-4-98 - Once the appellant intimated the fact to the department, the suppression of fact or misdeclaration cannot be alleged - In view of the above position, appellant has a very strong prima facie case in their favour and therefore unconditional stay against the recovery of the service tax and penalty is allowed after waiving pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues:
Demand for service tax confirmation, imposition of interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 48/98-S.T. for services provided to UNDP. Time-barred demand, invocation of extended period, imposition of penalties based on suppression of facts.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the confirmation of a demand for service tax amounting to Rs. 11,250/- for the period from April 2002 to September 2002 against the appellant, along with the imposition of interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, engaged in providing scientific and technical consultancy services, argued that they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 48/98-S.T. for services provided to UNDP. The appellant highlighted that they had previously submitted covering letters with ST-3 returns indicating amounts received from UNDP and claiming exemption. While the duty demand for earlier periods was dropped, the demand for the period ending September 2002 was confirmed due to an alleged lack of acknowledgment by the department on the covering letter. The appellant contended that there was no intention to suppress facts or evade service tax, as evidenced by their consistent communication with the department regarding receipts from UNDP.

Upon considering the submissions, the judge acknowledged the appellant's proactive approach in intimating the department about their transactions, indicating a bona fide belief in their eligibility for exemption. The judge noted that the appellant's prior disclosures for earlier periods and subsequent period supported their claim, undermining the allegation of suppression of facts or misdeclaration. While the judge refrained from delving into the merits of the case, they emphasized that the appellant's history of communication with the department weakened the basis for invoking suppression of facts. Consequently, the judge found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case in their favor, leading to the allowance of an unconditional stay against the recovery of service tax and penalties after waiving pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the judgment revolves around the appellant's eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 48/98-S.T., the alleged suppression of facts leading to the demand for service tax, and the imposition of penalties. The judge's decision to grant a stay in favor of the appellant was influenced by the appellant's consistent communication with the department, which cast doubt on the department's claim of suppression of facts.