2014 (2) TMI 479 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Stay of recovery - Demand of service tax - Business Support Service - Held that - no prima facie case for the appellant against the demand raised on them for the period prior to 10/05/2007. From the records, it appears that the consistent case of the appellant is that they were providing only BSS. This very service was a taxable service prior to 10/05/2007 also but no service tax was paid by the appellant. There is no cogent explanation for this default - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a supplementary appeal.
2. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in relation to confirmed dues.
3. Liability of the appellant for service tax for the period prior to 10/05/2007.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with three applications filed by the appellant. The first application seeks condonation of the delay in filing a supplementary appeal. The Tribunal allows this application, condoning the delay in the supplementary appeal, which was filed within the statutory period of limitation.

2. The remaining applications pertain to the waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery concerning confirmed dues, including a demand of Rs.24,26,743 for service tax and education cesses from January 2007 to March 2009. The records indicate that the demand was confirmed against the appellant under the head of packaging service. An amount paid by the appellant for Business Support Service (BSS) for a specific period was appropriated towards the confirmed demand. Arguments were presented regarding the demand for the period from January 2007 to 09/05/2007. The appellant claimed that the main contractor had paid service tax for the same activity, but failed to provide evidence. The Tribunal did not find a prima facie case for the appellant against the demand raised for the period before 10/05/2007. The appellant was directed to predeposit the amount of Rs.3,56,505 within six weeks, subject to which penalties and interest would be waived and stayed.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellant's consistent case was that they provided only BSS, a taxable service even before 10/05/2007, but no service tax was paid. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this default. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the appellant to predeposit the specified amount and report compliance within a set timeframe, with penalties and interest being waived and stayed upon compliance.

This judgment highlights the Tribunal's decision on the condonation of delay, waiver of predeposit, and the appellant's liability for service tax for a specific period, providing detailed reasoning for each issue addressed.