2013 (8) TMI 568 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax on erection, commissioning and installation services - Held that - Noticee is working under Self-Assessment Scheme and in the said scheme, it is the responsibility of the Noticee to determine whether they are providing any taxable service or not, and if so, to make application for registration for rendering such taxable services, to determine the proper value of their taxable services and to discharge their service tax liability. In the instant case, the Noticee themselves did not get themselves registered in time, did not get themselves registered for all the taxable services rendered by them and even after getting registered, had not disclosed the actual facts to the department. Thus, it is clear to me that the Noticee clearly violated the provisions of Section 66, 67 and Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - Prima facie applicant had not discharged the correct Service Tax on gross taxable value received by them during the relevant period - applicant directed to deposit 50% of the Service Tax involved in the present case within six weeks from the date of communication of this order and report compliance on 03.09.2013. On deposit of the said amount, the balance dues adjudged would stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Applicant seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The applicant failed to appear despite multiple adjournments, citing various reasons such as counsel being held up and proprietor's illness. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the application due to the matter's age.

2. The Revenue argued that the applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1.36 Crores and equivalent penalty for services rendered between 2004-05 and 2007-08. Despite providing services since 2004-05, the applicant registered only in 2005. Discrepancies between taxable values in returns and actual receipts led to a demand notice of Rs. 1,36,68,588/-.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the Revenue's submissions and the adjudicating authority's findings. It noted the initiation of proceedings due to differences in taxable values and receipts. The authority found the applicant failed to explain the variations adequately, leading to the conclusion that taxable services were provided based on other evidence.

4. The adjudicating authority's order highlighted the applicant's failure to submit the actual value of taxable services in returns, leading to non-payment of correct Service Tax. The authority emphasized the applicant's violation of various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994.

5. Considering the findings, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the Service Tax within six weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, with the balance dues waived upon deposit. The order aimed to balance the interests of the Revenue and adhere to legal principles set by higher courts.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal provisions involved in the case.