2015 (10) TMI 1996 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of Pre-Deposit Construction of bridges Work orders could not be produced - Appellant offers to deposit ₹ 2.00 Lakh and prays the matter to be remanded to Commissioner(Appeals) Revenue contends that nature of work done could not be ascertained; no objection in remanding the case to Commissioner(Appeals). Held That - Commissioner (Appeals) did not go into the merits of the case; matter remanded back as such Deposit of ₹ 2.00 Lakh admitted - All issues kept open.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, non-compliance with pre-deposit direction, nature of services rendered by the Applicant, financial hardship of the Applicant.

Analysis:

The Applicant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amounting to &8377; 43.72 Lakhs along with an equal penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Applicant contended that they provided construction services for bridges under the category of Commercial & Industrial Construction Services exempted from duty. However, the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed their appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive and lack of sufficient evidence supporting their claim. The Applicant offered to deposit &8377; 2.00 Lakhs and requested a remand to the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) for a fresh decision on the merits of the case.

The ld. AR for the Revenue supported the findings of the ld. Commissioner(Appeals), emphasizing the lack of evidence presented to determine whether the services provided were indeed related to the construction of bridges or other civil construction work. The Revenue had no objection to remanding the case for a fresh decision on the merits by the ld. Commissioner(Appeals).

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage with the consent of both parties. It was noted that the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) did not delve into the merits of the case but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive. Considering the financial hardship of the Applicant, the Tribunal found the offer to deposit &8377; 2.00 Lakhs reasonable. The Applicant was directed to make this deposit within eight weeks and report compliance directly to the ld. Commissioner(Appeals), who would then proceed to hear the case on merit without requiring any further pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and kept all issues open, allowing the appeal by way of remand and disposing of the stay petition.