2011 (10) TMI 506 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - pure agent - reimbursable expenses - Demand has been confirmed on brokerage - Held that - as regards demand of brokerage the assessees have made out a strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver in the light of the Tribunal s order in Lee & Muir Head Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore reported (2008 - TMI - 32881 - CESTAT BANGALORE - Service Tax) As regards other activities assessees have not made out a prima facie case for total waiver in the light of the finding of the Commissioner that as regards banking commission professional fees additional expenses for the crane charges and labour mamool the importer or the exporter is not liable to pay the charges to the respective service providers and further no supporting documents or bills were produced by the assessees in respect of the above mentioned expenses

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand on brokerage received and tax on reimbursable expenses.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, involved appeals concerning the confirmation of service tax demand on brokerage received by the assessees from 2003 to 2007, as well as tax on reimbursable expenses. The Tribunal considered the assessees' arguments for waiver of pre-deposit of tax, interest, and penalties. Regarding the demand on brokerage, the Tribunal noted a strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver based on precedents like Lee & Muir Head Pvt. Ltd. and Ruth Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the amount related to brokerage. However, for the balance amount, the assessees failed to establish a prima facie case for total waiver. The Tribunal highlighted the Commissioner's findings that certain expenses were not the liability of the importer or exporter, and no supporting documents were provided by the assessees for these expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the assessees to pre-deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe. Upon compliance with this direction, the pre-deposit of the remaining disputed amounts would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Failure to adhere to this directive would lead to the vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice. The compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.

This judgment underscores the importance of establishing a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in tax-related appeals. It also highlights the significance of providing supporting documentation for expenses in dispute. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the need for compliance with directives to avoid adverse consequences.