2007 (11) TMI 239 - AT - Service Tax

Demand for Storage & Warehousing Services is for the period prior to 16-8-02 this service was not under tax net during that period another demand on Cargo Handling Services, Business Auxiliary Services & CHA services - Prima facie, assessee have a strong case in first issue - in other two issues, the matter is required to be seen at the final stage - majority of the amounts are not payable and the case appears to be in assessees favour, we are inclined to allow the stay application

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 3037465/- along with penalties for various confirmed amounts under different heads such as Custom House Agent Services, Storage & Warehousing Services, Cargo Handling Services, and Business Auxiliary Services.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved a case where the appellants were directed to pre-deposit a significant sum along with penalties for amounts confirmed under four different heads. Firstly, regarding "Custom House Agent Services," an amount of Rs. 11,47,647/- was confirmed. The appellants argued that a previous bench's Final Order covered the issue. The Tribunal found this argument valid and held that this amount was not sustainable. Moving on to "Storage & Warehousing Services," an amount of Rs. 5,89,439/- was confirmed for a period before 16-8-2002. The appellants contended that taxable services came after this period, making the demand invalid. The Tribunal found their argument strong and indicated a favorable stance towards the appellants.

Furthermore, concerning "Cargo Handling Services," an amount of Rs. 1,58,742/- was confirmed. The appellants claimed they provided transportation services, not covered under this heading. The Tribunal noted this contention and reserved the decision for the final stage. Lastly, for "Business Auxiliary Services," an amount of Rs. 1,41,642/- was confirmed. The appellants received commission amounts exempted under a specific notification. The Tribunal acknowledged this exemption and found the demand inapplicable. The Tribunal considered the appellants' arguments and found that the majority of the amounts were not payable, leaning towards the appellants' favor. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay application and suspended the recovery. The appeal was scheduled for an expedited hearing on 19th December, 2007, due to the prima facie applicability of cited judgments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed amounts, considering the appellants' arguments and the applicability of previous judgments. The decision highlighted the importance of specific legal grounds and exemptions in determining the validity of confirmed amounts under different service categories.