2011 (3) TMI 727 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - appellant filed modification application before Commissioner (Appeals) submitting that in an identical dispute, the Tribunal granted unconditional stay and as such, the stay order passed by him be modified - Service Tax stand confirmed against the appellant, who is providing services of Stock Broker and banking and other financial services, in respect of amount received on account of services such as NSE/BSE transaction charges and SEBI turn over fees - in the case of M/s. Anagram Capital Ltd. as reported in (2009 -TMI - 75046 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), the issue involved was identical i.e. demand was being raised in respect of amount of NSE and SEBI charges. Tribunal observed that such charges were liable to Service Tax from May 2008 and not before that - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with stay order leading to dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Modification application filed by the appellant regarding the stay order.
3. Applicability of Tribunal's decision in a similar case to the present case.
4. Setting aside the impugned order for decision on merit without pre-deposit.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of non-compliance with the stay order, which resulted in the dismissal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant-applicant was directed to deposit a specific amount out of the total confirmed duty. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the stay order, which required the appellant to deposit a certain sum.

2. The appellant filed a modification application before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking a change in the stay order based on a similar case where the Tribunal had granted unconditional stay. The Commissioner disposed of the modification application, stating that the Tribunal's previous decision was an interim order and did not provide detailed reasoning for the difference in facts between the cases. The Tribunal, however, observed that the issue in the present case was identical to the previous case where the Tribunal had ruled that certain charges were liable to Service Tax from a specific date. Therefore, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit condition and allowed the Stay Petition.

3. The judgment emphasizes the importance of applying previous Tribunal decisions to similar cases. In this instance, the Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were akin to a previous case where the Tribunal had ruled on the tax liability of certain charges. As the period in the present appeal was before the specified date in the previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the previous decision applied to the current situation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition without requiring a pre-deposit.

4. Lastly, the judgment highlights the need for the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits, as the impugned order was set aside for a decision on the substantive issues without insisting on any pre-deposit. The Stay Petition and the appeal were disposed of in this manner, ensuring that the case would be reconsidered based on its merits without the pre-deposit requirement.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues addressed by the Tribunal and the reasoning behind its decision in each aspect of the case.