2012 (9) TMI 453 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - demand of service tax - Construction Services - appellant had categorically admitted tax liability and challenge to valuation Held that - In any case, as the appellant categorically admitted their tax liability on principle in their memorandum of appeal, it is not open to them to rely on the cited judgement wherein a view was declared against the Revenue on the question whether service tax could be levied under the head Works Contract for any period prior to the date on which that service became taxable - Instant application to be one fit for summary dismissal on the ground of maintainability - No case for modification of the stay order has been made out by the appellant - directed to make pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of Stay Order
2. Prima Facie Case for Modification
3. Application for Review of Stay Order
4. Maintainability of Modification Application

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought modification of Stay Order No. 481/11, directing pre-deposit of Rs. 80 lakhs. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the appellant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs and file a petition before the Tribunal for waiver of the balance amount. The appellant exercised this liberty by filing the present application.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant admitted tax liability for Construction Services but disputed the taxable value. The Bench found no prima facie case against the demand of service tax and directed pre-deposit of Rs. 80 lakhs. The appellant's plea of limitation and financial hardship was also considered and rejected.

3. The appellant cited a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court regarding service tax under Works Contract. However, the Tribunal found the facts of that case different from the present case. The appellant's admission of tax liability precluded reliance on the cited judgment. The Tribunal held that the judgment was not relevant to the current case.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the modification application was a review of the stay order, which is legally barred. Citing precedent, the Tribunal outlined the procedure for dealing with modification applications. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for modification and dismissed the application. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit the balance amount within four weeks.

5. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's modification application, emphasizing that no case for modification was made out. The application was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. A miscellaneous application by the department for non-compliance was also dismissed in light of the Tribunal's order.