2014 (11) TMI 462 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Cargo Handling Service - Held that - Applicant in their Profit & Loss Account mentioned the service as Cargo Transport Hire Charges . The learned counsel submitted that assessee are only picking up the cargo from one place and delivering it to other place within the country. However, this argument is not appreciated - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay order directing pre-deposit and verification of deposit amount.
2. Classification dispute: Cargo Handling Service vs. Goods Transport Agency Service.
3. Claim for Cenvat credit and adjustment against differential amount.
4. Compliance with stay order and submission of documents for verification.

Stay Order and Deposit Verification:
The Tribunal issued a stay order directing the appellant to pre-deposit a sum within a specified period and to report compliance. The appellant requested modification of the stay order, emphasizing that the transportation by Air was not related to Cargo Handling Service, and claimed eligibility for Cenvat credit. The appellant sought verification of the deposit amount, but the Revenue representative argued against accepting new pleas during modification. The Tribunal noted the appellant's submissions but emphasized the seriousness of compliance with the stay order and the need for proper verification.

Classification Dispute:
The appellant contended that they did not provide Cargo Handling Service but rather Goods Transport Agency Service, with tax liability falling on the service recipients. The Tribunal, after reviewing the Profit & Loss Account, found that the service was described as "Cargo Transport Hire Charges," indicating a Cargo Handling Service. The appellant's claim of only picking up and delivering cargo within the country was not convincing, and the Tribunal indicated that the classification dispute would be examined during the appeal hearing.

Cenvat Credit and Adjustment:
The appellant claimed a Cenvat credit of a specific amount, but the Tribunal noted that this claim was not previously presented to the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's conduct in not submitting the necessary documents for verification and raised concerns about the timing of the application for modification. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing the lack of substance in the appellant's filing and the failure to take timely steps for verification.

Compliance and Disposition:
Despite extending the compliance period, the Tribunal warned that non-compliance with producing the verification report and depositing the balance amount would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of with a directive for compliance by a specified date, highlighting the importance of meeting the requirements set forth in the stay order.