2013 (11) TMI 553 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax liability - Courier Agency Services, Renting of Immovable Property, Rent-a-Cab and Tour Operator services - Held that - to be covered under the definition of Courier Agency Service, there has to be door to door transportation of time sensitive goods or articles. In the case in hand, the issue is arguable one to the extent that the person at Junagarh city hands over documents or envelops to the appellant and the said envelop or document is transported by the appellant from Junagarh to Ahmedabad - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partially.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax liability, interest, and penalties on various services including Courier Agency Services, Renting of Immovable Property, Rent-a-Cab, and Tour Operator services.

Analysis:
The appellant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed as service tax liability, interest, and penalties on various services. The main contention was the confirmation of service tax liability on services like Courier Agency Services, Renting of Immovable Property, Rent-a-Cab, and Tour Operator services. The appellant argued that the bulk of the demand was related to Courier Services, but the Revenue authorities considered the activity as Courier Services based on the definition in Section 65(33) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant claimed that their service did not fall under the definition of Courier Agency Services as they did not deliver documents to customers' hands directly. They had deposited a significant amount during the proceedings, which they requested to be considered sufficient for hearing the appeal. The appellant also disputed the reliance on a previous judgment, stating the factual differences between the cases.

The departmental representative supported the findings of the adjudicating authority, emphasizing that the appellant did deliver goods and packets with receipts, indicating the provision of Courier Agency Services. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records. Regarding the service tax liability on Courier Agency Services, the definition was analyzed. The definition required door-to-door transportation of time-sensitive goods or articles. The Tribunal noted that the issue was debatable, especially concerning the collection and delivery of documents to customer premises. Considering the interpretation required and the amount already deposited by the appellant, the Tribunal directed the appellant to further deposit a specific amount within a specified period. The waiver of pre-deposit for the balance amounts was allowed, with recovery stayed until the disposal of appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of the definition of Courier Agency Services and the appellant's compliance with deposit requirements. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the arguments presented by both sides and established the conditions for further deposits and the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts pending appeal resolution.