2013 (10) TMI 1160 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the transportation and receiving of house hold items of their employees, which stand transferred to another unit of the same employee - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The amount confirmed against the appellant is much on the lower side and deposit of part amount would not cause any financial difficulty to the appellant - the issue is contentious and arguable and requires lot of consideration - the appellant is directed to deposit a part amount of Rs.50,000 as a condition of hearing of their appeal - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of duty and penalty related to denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for transportation of household items.
2. Whether the services provided can be considered as input services for the business.
3. Contention on the limitation period for the demand raised.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the application seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs.1,13,363/- confirmed against the applicant due to the denial of Cenvat credit on service tax for transporting household items of their employees to another unit. The appellant argues that these services are related to their business and should be treated as input services. On the contrary, the learned DR contends that such services do not fall under the definition of inputs. The Tribunal notes that the confirmed amount is relatively low and directs the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000 within six weeks as a condition for hearing the appeal. Upon this deposit, the remaining duty and penalty will be waived.

2. The primary issue revolves around whether the transportation and receiving services for employees' household items qualify as input services for the appellant's business. The appellant asserts that these activities are integral to their operations, while the opposing view questions the applicability of the inputs definition to such services. The Tribunal acknowledges the contentious nature of the matter, signaling the need for thorough consideration before making a final determination.

3. Additionally, the judgment briefly touches upon the aspect of the demand's limitation period being challenged. While not delving deeply into this issue, the Tribunal's decision to require a partial deposit indicates a willingness to address the concerns raised by the appellant regarding the demand's validity within the statutory limitations.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a nuanced approach by balancing the financial implications on the appellant with the need for further examination of the substantive issues raised, particularly concerning the classification of services as input services and the applicability of the limitation period for the demand. The direction for a partial deposit reflects a pragmatic stance pending the final resolution of the appeal.