9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 48 - AT - Service TaxPeriod of limitation demand beyond one year held that - The appellants had not furnished the details of pre-closure charges to the department till audit by the departmental officers and further correspondence with the appellants - the pre-closure charges cannot prima facie be equated with interest payment stay application allowed partly
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI issued a judgement in 2009 (9) TMI 48. The case was presided over by Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President, and Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member. Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate, represented the appellant, while Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, represented the respondent. Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member, delivered the order. The appellant argued that the demand for service tax between April 2003 to March 2006 was time-barred as the information was available to the department post-audit of the appellant's records. The tax was demanded on pre-closure charges, which were considered compensation for loss of interest on early loan repayments, and thus should not be taxed under the category of "banking and other financial services."
The JCDR contended that pre-closure charges were not interest on loans but related to the early repayment of a loan, justifying the tax demand on such charges. The appellants had been allowed assessment on a lower value, considering the charges inclusive of service tax. The tribunal found that the period in dispute was from 10.09.04 to 30.09.07, and the appellants had not provided details of pre-closure charges to the department until after the audit and subsequent correspondence. Therefore, the department was justified in invoking a longer period for raising the demand. The tribunal also concluded that pre-closure charges could not be equated with interest payments. In a similar case, the tribunal had directed a 50% pre-deposit of the tax amount. Consequently, the present appellants were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 85 lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance by 02.12.09. Compliance with this directive would result in the waiver of the balance amounts' pre-deposit and a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 22.09.09.
|
