2008 (8) TMI 254 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant, an architect - allegation that they have received consulting charges from State Education Department for implementation of District Primary Education Programme and they have not paid the Service Tax on this amount - there is no allegation of suppression of facts, etc., and intention to evade payment of duty in the SCN - have also denied having given any consulting engineering service to the State Education Department - Prima facie, the appellants have made out a case in their favour on the ground of time-bar - stay application is allowed

Summary

Issues: Time-barred demand for Service Tax, waiver of pre-deposit, stay application

Time-barred demand for Service Tax:
The appellant, an architect registered under the Finance Act, was required to pre-deposit Rs. 4,88,300/- as Service Tax confirmed on them for receiving consulting charges from the State Education Department. The show cause notice dated 4-5-2005 pertained to the period 1997-2002, and the appellant argued that without allegations of fraud, collusion, or wilful mis-statement, the demands were time-barred. Despite various pleas and reliance on judgments, the Service Tax was confirmed. However, the Tribunal found no allegation of suppression of facts or intention to evade payment of duty in the show cause notice, leading to a prima facie case in favor of the appellant on the ground of time-bar.

Waiver of pre-deposit:
After hearing both sides and examining the records and judgments cited, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's case on the time-bar issue. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a full waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the amount until the appeal's disposal. This decision was based on the absence of allegations of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty in the show cause notice, indicating a favorable stance towards the appellant.

Stay application:
The Tribunal allowed the stay application, ensuring that the waiver of pre-deposit and the stay on recovery would remain in force even after the expiry of 180 days. This decision aimed to provide relief to the appellant during the appeal process, considering the absence of certain crucial allegations in the show cause notice. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court, emphasizing the Tribunal's decision on the time-bar issue, waiver of pre-deposit, and the continuation of the stay application beyond the initial period.