2014 (1) TMI 146 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax on co-loader service - Commissioner confirmed tax liability - Held that - sub-brokers are not liable to pay any service tax as the same has already been paid by the main stock broker - self same service provided shall not be doubly taxable - If service tax is paid by a sub-broker - same taxable service provided by the stock-broker - credit of the tax paid - Following decision of Vijay Sharma & Co. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2010 (4) TMI 570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of cause title in the application.
2. Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax.
3. Demand of service tax on courier services.
4. Application of limitation on demand.
5. Applicability of case laws on the issue.
6. Waiver of pre-deposit requirement.

Change of Cause Title:
The judgment allowed the application for a change of cause title filed by the department, altering the respondent's name in the cause title to Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. The miscellaneous application for this change was granted.

Stay Application for Waiver of Pre-deposit:
The applicant sought a stay application for the waiver of pre-deposit of tax amounting to Rs. 52,86,510/- and Rs. 9637/-, including interest and penalty. The advocate argued that the demand was time-barred and not sustainable on merits, citing previous cases where unconditional stays were granted. The applicant contended that the extended period of limitation should not apply based on past circulars and Tribunal orders.

Demand of Service Tax on Courier Services:
The judgment revealed that the applicants were involved in providing courier services locally and internationally. The Commissioner had demanded tax for a specific period due to alleged non-payment of service tax on charges collected for co-loader services. The advocate argued against the demand, mentioning previous cases and circulars supporting their position.

Application of Limitation on Demand:
Both sides presented arguments regarding the limitation issue. The advocate claimed that the demand was time-barred and unsustainable on merits, citing relevant case law and circulars. The judgment considered these submissions and previous decisions before granting a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement.

Applicability of Case Laws:
The judgment discussed the applicability of case laws presented by both parties. It differentiated between previous cases based on the authorization of other parties to act as courier service providers. The Tribunal's decision in a specific case was deemed applicable, leading to the grant of a waiver for the entire tax amount along with interest and penalty.

Waiver of Pre-deposit Requirement:
After considering all submissions and relevant case laws, the judgment concluded that there was merit in waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the entire tax amount, interest, and penalty. The recovery of the waived amount was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, as decided in the open court.