9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1152 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Manpower recruitment or supply agency service - Held that - appellant did not reply to the relevant show-cause notice despite many opportunities available to them. They also did not attend any of the several personal hearings offered by the adjudicating authority. Indeed, the indifference of the appellant is writ large on the impugned order - appellant did not pay interest on the service tax and education cesses paid on the retainer fees even though the tax liability was not disputed. It further appears that, to the extent of non-dispute of such tax liability, the appellant has a penal liability also - Appellant diected to make a pre deposit - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Impugned demand under 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service' for the period from 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2010. Appellant's liability for service tax on retainer fees and charges paid by employees of service recipient companies. Appellant's failure to pay interest on service tax and education cesses. Appellant's request for waiver and stay against the impugned demands. --- Issue 1: Impugned demand under 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service': The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay against the impugned demands, including an amount of Rs. 2.06 crores demanded under the Head 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service'. The impugned demand was based on transactions between the appellant and various companies for providing 'concierge services' to employees. The appellant contended that the terms of the agreements did not constitute 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service'. Despite the appellant's non-attendance at hearings and failure to respond to notices, the tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the appellant against the demand, except for the demand on retainer fees. The tribunal decided to remand the case for de novo adjudication. --- Issue 2: Appellant's liability for service tax on retainer fees and charges: The impugned demand included service tax on retainer fees and charges paid by employees of service recipient companies. The appellant had paid a portion of the service tax on retainer fees but had not paid interest on the tax. The tribunal noted the appellant's failure to pay interest despite the undisputed tax liability. Consequently, the tribunal directed the appellant to predeposit an amount towards interest and penalty connected with the service tax and education cesses paid on the retainer fees. The appellant was given six weeks to comply and report to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. --- Issue 3: Appellant's failure to pay interest on service tax and education cesses: The tribunal observed that the appellant had not paid interest on the service tax and education cesses despite the undisputed tax liability. The tribunal considered this non-payment as a penal liability for the appellant. In light of this, the tribunal directed the appellant to predeposit a specific amount towards interest and penalty within a stipulated time frame for further adjudication. --- Issue 4: Appellant's request for waiver and stay: The tribunal disposed of the stay application filed by the appellant in connection with the impugned demands. The tribunal did not take a stance on the substantive issue but directed the appellant to predeposit a specified amount within a given timeline and report compliance for further adjudication. The tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice principles in the adjudication process and granted the appellant an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and present evidence. --- This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE highlights the key issues involved, the tribunal's findings, and the directives given to the appellant for further proceedings regarding the impugned demands and liabilities.
|
