2009 (6) TMI 202 - AT - Service Tax

Import of services - applicants submits that inspite of the voluminous materials placed before the concerned authority, it has been held that the contention of the applicant that the remittances were made for their share in group expenses has not been established from the records and secondly that the services were rendered in India during the disputed period and not outside India - Appellant submitted that the findings are contrary to the materials on record. However, no material on record which could reveal that the findings are contrary thereto was pointed out to us during the course of the hearing. - In this circumstances, we do not find any prima facie case made out for grant of waiver in relation to the demand of service tax and interest payable thereon. stay granted partly

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, presided over by Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Shri A.K. Srivastava, addressed a case where the appellant, represented by Shri Sunil B. Gabhawalla, challenged a Service Tax demand of Rs. 1,31,81,830/-, interest, and penalty of Rs. 1,32,00,000/-. The advocate argued that the remittances were for group expenses and the services were rendered in India. The Tribunal noted that the materials provided did not establish the appellant's contentions. The advocate cited a Bombay High Court case to support the appeal, but failed to show any contrary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find a prima facie case for waiving the tax and interest, but granted a waiver for the penalty. The appellant was instructed to deposit the tax and interest within 8 weeks, with the impugned order stayed pending appeal. A compliance report was requested by 4-8-09, and the application for stay was disposed of. This judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims in legal proceedings.