2013 (10) TMI 964 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Photography Service and Video Tape Production Service - Held that - Prima facie, we find that they are not eligible for abatement in view of the decision of the Tribunal and the amount was quantified on the basis of their documents. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 13 lakhs (Rupees Thirteen lakhs only). It is also directed that the payment made by the applicant would be adjusted against the pre-deposit amount subject to verification by the Division Office and the amount would be deposited within six weeks. Upon predeposit of the said amount, the balance amount of tax along with interest and penalties are to be waived and its recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Demand of tax on Photography Service and Video Tape Production Service for the period 01.02.2006 to 30.09.2010, eligibility for abatement, evidence of amount deposited, waiver of pre-deposit of tax.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Tax on Photography Service and Video Tape Production Service:
The issue at hand revolved around the demand of tax on Photography Service and Video Tape Production Service for a specific period. The Ld. Advocate argued that the tax demand was based on certain documents recovered from the premises, while emphasizing the reliability of computer printouts as evidence. It was contended that the applicants were eligible for abatement, with a suggestion that the payable tax amount was around Rs. Nine Lakhs, out of which a partial sum had already been paid. On the contrary, the Ld. AR argued against abatement eligibility, citing a Tribunal decision and asserting that the tax demand was justified based on the applicant's own documents.

2. Eligibility for Abatement:
The Ld. Advocate asserted that the applicants were entitled to abatement, emphasizing the reliability of computer printouts as opposed to other documents. However, the Ld. AR opposed this stance, referencing a Tribunal decision to support the claim that no abatement was applicable in this case. The Tribunal ultimately found merit in the arguments put forth by the Ld. AR, indicating that the applicants were not eligible for abatement, considering the decision of the Tribunal and the quantification of the amount based on their own documents.

3. Evidence of Amount Deposited:
The Ld. AR raised a crucial point regarding the lack of evidence supporting the amount deposited, challenging the contentions made by the Ld. Advocate. The Tribunal acknowledged this concern and noted that the tax demand was indeed raised on the basis of the applicant's own documents, further strengthening the decision regarding the pre-deposit amount to be made.

4. Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Tax:
Following a thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specific sum of Rs. 13 lakhs within a stipulated timeframe. It was specified that this deposit would be subject to verification by the Division Office, with the understanding that upon compliance, the balance tax amount along with interest and penalties would be waived, and recovery thereof stayed until the appeal's disposal. A reporting compliance date was set for monitoring the progress of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the demand of tax, eligibility for abatement, evidence of amount deposited, and the waiver of pre-deposit of tax.