2013 (5) TMI 314 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposits Demand of service tax under the head rent-a-cab service - Having found no evidence of pre-deposit, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act. - Held that - The appellant before us had allowed their buses to be used by the APSRTC as stage carriages during the material period. According to the department, the appellant was rendering rent-a-cab service to APSRTC. On similar sets of facts, this bench passed the cited stay orders after taking the prima facie view that APSRTC was not receiving rent-a-cab service from the parties. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to remand this case to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for final disposal without insisting on any pre-deposit, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Summary

Issues:
Adjudged dues waiver and stay application, non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, prima facie case for the appellant against service tax demand under rent-a-cab service.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking waiver and stay of adjudged dues, along with an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) related to the demand of service tax under the head rent-a-cab service. The original authority had demanded service tax and imposed penalties on the appellant, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority required a pre-deposit of 50% of the adjudged dues, which was not complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal based on non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The present appeal challenges this order of dismissal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for the appellant against the demand of service tax under the rent-a-cab service. This finding was supported by stay orders previously passed by the Tribunal in similar cases involving the appellant and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation (APSRTC). The Tribunal noted that in cases where APSRTC was involved, it was inclined to view that APSRTC was not receiving rent-a-cab services from the parties. As a result, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a final disposal of the appeal on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit, providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appellant's appeal without requiring any pre-deposit. The stay application was also disposed of in light of the remand decision. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court, reflecting a fair and just decision-making process in the matter.