2008 (9) TMI 285 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants were covered under the heading Customs House Agents and were discharging the service tax. A portion of the services falls within the category of Port Services . We find that in an identical situation, this Bench in the case of M/s. Alvares & Thomas has granted full waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and has accepted the plea of the time bar - The facts being similar, we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services under 'Port Services' for levy of service tax.
2. Invocation of the larger period for demand due to non-disclosure of certain services by the assessee.
3. Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit and time bar for demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of services under 'Port Services' for levy of service tax
The appellants, classified as 'Customs House Agents,' were discharging service tax. The Department contended that a portion of the services provided fell under 'Port Services,' justifying the levy of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand along with a penalty. The appellant argued that the Department had changed its view on service categorization and that the demand was time-barred due to delayed issuance of the show cause notice. The tribunal noted the similarity with a previous case where full waiver of pre-deposit was granted, and based on this precedent, decided in favor of the appellant by granting a waiver of pre-deposit and rejecting the demand.

Issue 2: Invocation of the larger period for demand due to non-disclosure
The Department argued that certain services were not declared by the assessee, falling under 'Port Services,' justifying the invocation of the larger period for demand. The tribunal considered this argument but ultimately decided in favor of the appellant, granting a waiver of pre-deposit and rejecting the demand based on the similarity with a previous case where full waiver was granted.

Issue 3: Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit and time bar for demand
The appellant requested the matter to be linked with a previous appeal where a waiver was granted and sought out-of-turn hearing. The tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, granted a waiver of pre-deposit based on the similarity with the previous case and the absence of suppression of facts. The tribunal also allowed a stay application, preventing recovery even after 180 days from the order date, and scheduled an out-of-turn hearing for the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in decision-making, reliance on legal precedents, and the consideration of time-barred demands in tax matters.