9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 807 - HC - Service TaxWaiver of pre-deposit - Demand of service tax on the activity of providing labour for harvesting sugarcane - for the later period it was found the no service tax is payable - whether in the light of later order, if the nature of service remains same, the appellant can be held amenable to service tax arises for consideration? - Held that - We, in this situation, as in later period the services rendered by appellant are held not amenable to service tax, grant the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit. The appeal is restored for a fresh adjudication on merits. - stay granted.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's service is subject to service tax from May 2005 to January 2010? 2. Whether the appellant's appeal seeking waiver of pre-deposit should be restored for fresh adjudication on merits? Analysis: Issue 1: The High Court noted the appellant's contention that the service provided by them during the later year was not amenable to service tax. The court observed developments in the case, including subsequent proceedings being withdrawn. The appellant argued that the nature of the service, providing labor for harvesting sugarcane, remained the same. The court considered the appellant's previous appeal to the CESTAT, where waiver of pre-deposit was sought but not granted, leading to the appeal's dismissal for non-compliance. However, in a separate matter, the appellant was found not liable to pay tax for a later period. The court questioned whether, considering the nature of the service remained the same, the appellant could be held amenable to service tax. Issue 2: The court, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the appellant's appeal back to the file of CESTAT. Given that the services rendered by the appellant for the later period were found not amenable to service tax, the court granted the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit. The appeal was ordered to be restored for a fresh adjudication on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority for further orders. The Central Excise appeal was partly allowed and disposed of, with no costs imposed.
|
