2010 (10) TMI 488 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Valuation - All the details of inputs used need not be mentioned in the invoices/bills issued, and even value of goods which are subject matter of transfer can still be established by producing necessary documentary evidence - The certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant cannot be termed as primary evidence - Prima facie, the impugned order does not disclose the consideration of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in support of the appellant s contention - It is true that the order relied upon discloses other materials in the form of bills and invoices claimed to be produced by the assessee - It would be appropriate to direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 crore and taking into consideration the contention that 33% of the service tax has already been paid - Waiving the rest of the amount demanded under the impugned order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability based on material used in rendering services.
2. Consideration of Chartered Accountant's certificate as evidence.
3. Requirement of documentary evidence for establishing value of goods.
4. Interim relief in tax dispute cases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability based on material used in rendering services
The appellants contended that duty liability was imposed without considering documentary proof of materials used, citing relevant case laws. The authorities, however, disbelieved the Chartered Accountant's certificate and required the appellants to establish its correctness by producing necessary account books. The impugned order focused on the absence of references to material value in invoices and bills, leading to the imposition of duty.

Issue 2: Consideration of Chartered Accountant's certificate as evidence
The Tribunal's decision in Shilpa Colour Lab case emphasized that material supply could be proven through other documentary evidence besides invoices. The certificate, though not primary evidence, should have been considered by the authorities, but the impugned order lacked a clear finding on its acceptance or rejection. The absence of reference to the certificate raised concerns about the authority's consideration of all relevant evidence.

Issue 3: Requirement of documentary evidence for establishing value of goods
The law allows for the establishment of goods' value without detailing all inputs in invoices. The certificate by a Chartered Accountant, while not primary evidence, should have been considered by the authority. The impugned order failed to sufficiently address the certificate's relevance, indicating a need for a more thorough examination of the documentary evidence presented by the appellants.

Issue 4: Interim relief in tax dispute cases
The Apex Court's decision highlighted that interim orders should not be passed merely on establishing a prima facie case. The purpose of interim orders is to prevent irreparable harm, balancing the interests of all parties involved. In this case, considering the facts and the failure to consider the Chartered Accountant's certificate, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a reduced sum, acknowledging the partial payment made and the need to safeguard the revenue's interests.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the duty liability issue, the importance of considering all evidence, and the necessity of balancing interests in tax dispute cases. The decision highlighted the need for a comprehensive assessment of documentary evidence and a nuanced approach to interim relief in such matters.