2013 (9) TMI 108 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial or Industrial Construction Service u/s 65(30a)(b) - Revenue was of the view that the Assesse were engaged in providing taxable services - Held that - Prima facie the services were held to be taxable by the Commissioner after recording his reasons, it would not be correct to say that the assesse had submitted the jurisdiction about classification of services claimed by them in the SCN as non-taxable - The Ld. Commissioner had examined these the work orders and after detail analysis of each of the work orders had come to a finding that even though services under various categories work rendered by the assesse liable to the service tax on various services. Waiver of pre-deposit - The assesse would not be able to make out a prima facie case of total waiver of dues adjudged against them - the applicant had pleaded financial hardship but no documentary evidence had been placed - he was ordered to deposit 25% of the service tax upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. Allegations and Submissions:
- The appellant was alleged to have rendered commercial or industrial construction services to a specific entity, leading to a demand for service tax.
- The appellant argued that the services confirmed by the Commissioner were beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and were never rendered by them.
- The appellant referenced a previous decision to support their argument.

2. Revenue's Position:
- The Revenue contended that the appellant, though rendering services since 2004-05, only registered with the Department in August 2007.
- The Commissioner reduced the demand after analyzing the work orders submitted by the appellant.

3. Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal noted that the SCN alleged non-payment of service tax on commercial or industrial construction services.
- The Commissioner carefully considered the submissions and reduced the demand after detailed scrutiny.
- The Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted detailed work orders, and the Commissioner's decision was based on a reasoned finding.
- The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the SCN and found that the services were held taxable after analysis.

4. Decision and Order:
- The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the service tax amount, with the balance waived upon deposit.
- The appellant's financial hardship plea lacked documentary evidence.
- Failure to deposit the required amount would result in the dismissal of the appeal.
- The Tribunal emphasized the interest of revenue and the need for compliance.

5. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the taxability of services rendered by the appellant.
- The appellant was directed to make a partial deposit to proceed with the appeal process, with the remaining amount waived upon compliance.
- Documentary evidence of financial hardship was deemed necessary for consideration.
- The Tribunal stressed the importance of complying with the deposit directive to avoid appeal dismissal and highlighted the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in determining tax liability based on submitted work orders.