2013 (4) TMI 583 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of predeposit Demand of service tax/Interest/penalties - The appellate authority required the appellants to predeposit various amounts under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act but none of the appellants made any deposit within the prescribed period. Having found no evidence of predeposit, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected all the appeals on the sole ground of non-compliance with Section 35F ibid without examining the merits of the cases. The appeals before us are all directed against such orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Held that - we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the assessees appeals on merits without insisting on any predeposit. The stay applications also stand disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with multiple appeals where the appellants sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery. The Department had issued show-cause notices demanding service tax under the head rent-a-cab service, interest, and penalties. The original authorities ruled against the parties, who then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and applied for predeposit waiver. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for the appellants based on a Stay Order in similar cases. The appellants had provided buses to a state corporation under agreements not classified as rent-a-cab service, leading to the waiver of predeposit and stay in previous cases. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merits without requiring predeposit, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding them to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision without insisting on predeposit. The judgment emphasized giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case and directed speaking orders to be issued in all cases. Additionally, the stay applications were also disposed of in light of the decision.