2012 (9) TMI 490 - AT - Service Tax

Clearing & Forwarding Agent services - Stay filed for waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - As decided in appellant s own case in Gudwin Logistics Versus Commissioner of Central Excise 2011 (12) TMI 262 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD for no liablity to pay service tax for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 has held in favour of the assessee and hence the Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is allowed and take up the appeal itself for disposal - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Stay Petition: The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 amounting to Rs.1,47,94,114. The penalties were confirmed by the adjudicating authority based on the appellant providing Clearing & Forwarding Agent services for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010.

2. Judicial Precedent: The Tribunal noted that in the appellant's own case, a previous decision by the Bench had ruled in favor of the assessee on an identical issue. Referring to Final Order No. A/2173-2175/WZB/AHD dated 15.12.2011, the Bench allowed the Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit based on the previous ruling in favor of the appellant on the same issue.

3. Service Tax Liability: Upon reviewing the records and the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had held the appellant liable for Service Tax under the category of Clearing & Forwarding Agent services as per Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. However, since the issue was identical to the one decided in the appellant's favor previously, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside.

4. Decision: Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, considering the previous ruling in the appellant's favor on the same issue. The decision was made after careful consideration of the legal provisions and the precedent set by the Tribunal in the appellant's earlier case.

5. Conclusion: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, highlights the importance of judicial precedent and consistency in decisions, especially when dealing with similar legal issues. The analysis of the Service Tax liability and the application of relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, demonstrate the meticulous approach taken by the Tribunal in reaching a just and fair decision in the matter.