2007 (12) TMI 176 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant have not produced any piece of evidence to substantiate their claim for non-levy of service tax on the alleged services of housekeeping rendered by them - certificate of C.A has also not been produced for scrutiny - C.A s certificate ought to have given break up of house keeping services furnished year-wise - assessee has not discharged their burden to seek benefit of non-levy of service tax on house keeping services but in view of financial hardship stay is partly granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of CA's certificate for non-levy of service tax on housekeeping services.
2. Sufficiency of evidence produced by the appellant.
3. Burden of proof on the appellant regarding housekeeping services.
4. Financial hardship plea and deposit requirement.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Acceptance of CA's certificate for non-levy of service tax on housekeeping services
The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the demands based on the CA's Certificate provided by the appellant, stating that housekeeping services were not under the service tax ambit. However, the Commissioner later deemed the certificate unreliable as it lacked specific details such as total amount attributable to housekeeping services, total amount received by the assessee, and customer-specific amounts. The Commissioner found the certificate to be unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence, leading to a challenge on its validity.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence produced by the appellant
The appellant argued that the grounds for rejecting the certificate were not communicated to them, emphasizing the inviolability of the CA's certificate. However, the appellant failed to present substantial evidence before the Tribunal to support their claim of non-levy of service tax on housekeeping services. The learned SDR highlighted the absence of evidence in the appellant's submissions, indicating a lack of substantiation for their position.

Issue 3: Burden of proof on the appellant regarding housekeeping services
The Tribunal concurred with the SDR's assessment that the appellant did not provide adequate evidence to prove the provision of housekeeping services. The absence of a detailed breakdown of services in the CA's certificate and the failure to present it for scrutiny weakened the appellant's case. As the burden of proof lay with the appellant, the Tribunal considered the certificate unreliable and emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support the claim of non-levy of service tax.

Issue 4: Financial hardship plea and deposit requirement
Despite the uncertainties surrounding the appellant's case, the Tribunal acknowledged the plea of financial hardship. In light of this, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a reduced sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three months to avoid dismissal of the appeal. Upon compliance with this directive, the balance of duty and penalty was waived, demonstrating a balance between financial considerations and legal obligations.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the acceptance of the CA's certificate, sufficiency of evidence, burden of proof, and the financial implications for the appellant.