9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 243 - AT - Service TaxNotification No. 14/2004-S.T Process undertaken by assessee on tobacco leaves for his clients Whether this amounts to rendering of Business Auxiliary Services Or it is manufacture for the purpose of levy of duty of excise and, and no Service tax is leviable Department alleged that the process undertaken by them on tobacco leaves amounted to rendering of Business Auxiliary Services by virtue of the amended definition and therefore they were liable to pay Service tax for the material period Held that - After the examination of the processes undertaken by the appellant on tobacco leaves, Prima facie, it was found that the product emerging at the end of this process had the essential character of the input (tobacco leaves). Therefore, the principle enunciated in the Board s circular is prima facie applicable. - Appellants are prima facie eligible for exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. Full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery granted against the Service tax demanded under BAS . GTA services In Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. CST 2009 (9) TMI 71 - CESTAT, BANGALORE it was held that a Goods Transport Agency , as statutorily defined, should provide service in relation to transport of goods by road by issuing consignment note - Commissioner observed to the fact that there was plenty of case laws against the assessee, but none was cited in the impugned order. Suffice it to say that the appellant in Appeal No. ST/410/2011 has made out a prima facie case against demand of Service tax under GTA services on the strength of decision of this Bench - Full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery granted.
Issues:
1. Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of Service tax under "Business Auxiliary Service" and "GTA service" for specific periods. 2. Dispute over demand of Service tax under "BAS" and "GTA services" based on amendments and definitions. 3. Prima facie case analysis for exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. and Stay Orders cited. 4. Reference to previous Tribunal decisions for similar cases under "GTA services." 5. Opposition by the Additional Commissioner based on findings by the learned Commissioner. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves two separate stay applications concerning the waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of significant amounts of Service tax under "Business Auxiliary Service" and "GTA service" for specific periods, along with penalties imposed on the appellant. 2. The dispute primarily revolves around the demand of Service tax under "BAS" and "GTA services" following an amendment to the definition of "Business Auxiliary services" effective from 16-6-2005. The appellants contested the demand, arguing that the activities undertaken amounted to "manufacture" or were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. 3. The Tribunal considered the prima facie case presented by the appellants, supported by the Board's Circular and previous Stay Orders, indicating eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. for the demand under "BAS." The Tribunal also noted the appellant's prima facie case against the demand of Service tax under "GTA services" based on previous Tribunal decisions. 4. Reference was made to previous Tribunal decisions, such as Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. CST, Bangalore, to support the appellant's case against the demand of Service tax under "GTA services." The appellant argued that the learned Commissioner did not follow relevant case law without providing sufficient reasons. 5. The Additional Commissioner opposed the applications based on the findings of the learned Commissioner, highlighting the presence of case laws against the appellant. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the prima facie case made by the appellants and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the amounts adjudged against both appellants. In conclusion, the judgment analyzed the demands of Service tax under "BAS" and "GTA services" in detail, considering the arguments presented by the appellants, previous Tribunal decisions, and relevant legal provisions to grant the waiver and stay of recovery in favor of the appellants.
|
