2013 (8) TMI 85 - AT - Service Tax

Stay application Waiver of pre-deposit - Issue involved in this case is whether the appellant herein is required to include the cost of free supply of material given by the service receiver for ascertaining gross value for discharging Service Tax liability or not - There were contrary views expressed by different Benches, the matter was referred to a larger bench in one case Held that - Since the issue involved in this case is before Larger Bench, as a convention, appellant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved Stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is required to include the cost of free supply of material for calculating Service Tax liability.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the appellant is required to include the cost of free supply of material for calculating Service Tax liability.
The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax liability confirmed, interest, and penalties imposed under various Sections. The appellant claimed that they had availed ineligible benefits under Notification No.15/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST. The Tribunal noted the issue of whether the appellant should include the cost of free material supplied by the service receiver in determining the gross value for Service Tax liability. The Tribunal observed conflicting decisions in cases like M/s Jaihind Projects Ltd. and M/s Cemex Engineers, which held different views on the matter. The Tribunal mentioned that a Larger Bench was constituted in the case of M/s Vascon Engineers Ltd. to address this issue. As the matter was pending before the Larger Bench, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant for the waiver of pre-deposit due to the conflicting views on the issue. The Tribunal also directed the appellant not to claim a refund of the amount already deposited during the proceedings until the appeal's disposal. Consequently, the Stay Petition was allowed, and the recovery of the amount was stayed until the appeal's final decision.

This judgment highlights the significance of resolving conflicting views on legal issues, such as the inclusion of free material costs in determining Service Tax liability. It also emphasizes the procedural aspects of pre-deposit waivers and the management of already deposited amounts during the appeal process. The decision to await the Larger Bench's ruling demonstrates the Tribunal's adherence to legal conventions and the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.