2008 (7) TMI 263 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting engineer - services are being granted by them as sub-consultant - it is the appellant s submission that the main consultant has discharged the service tax liability no evidence produced by appellant to support their claim further reimbursable claim made by the appellant, is not admissible in as much as most of them are on account of the office equipment, rent, staff etc. which an independent consultant engineer is required to maintain on its own stay partly granted

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of demand of duty and penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in rendering taxable services as an independent consulting engineer, filed a stay petition to dispense with the pre-deposit condition of the demand of duty and penalty imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute primarily revolved around the alleged suppression of the value of services provided by the appellant, who also acted as a sub-consultant to the main consultant. The main consultant's payment of service tax liability for the services rendered by the appellant was a key point of contention. The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's plea, citing the lack of an exact arithmetical break-up of project-wise payment by the main consultant.

2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the reimbursable expenses claimed by the appellant were not entirely admissible as they mainly pertained to expenses like office equipment, rent, and staff, which an independent consultant engineer is expected to maintain. Additionally, the appellant failed to provide evidence establishing a correlation between the payments made by the main consultant and the tax liability for the sub-contracted services. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not established a prima facie case to unconditionally allow the stay petition.

3. The appellant's financial stability and the absence of any hardship plea led the Tribunal to direct the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a stipulated timeframe as a condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant was instructed to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs within eight weeks, following which the pre-deposit of the remaining duty amount and the entire penalty would be dispensed with. The compliance of this directive was scheduled to be reviewed on a specified date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the stay petition and pre-deposit conditions related to the demand of duty and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.