2009 (7) TMI 250 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service - demand arises as a result of holding that the assessees are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 for the reason that the gross amount charged for an individual consignment transported in a goods carriage exceeded Rs. 750/-. - contention of the assessees that they are covered by clause (1) of the notification as the gross amount charged on a consignment transported in a goods carriage ranged between Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1,500/- and did not exceed Rs. 1,500/- is prima facie not tenable in view of the clear language of clause (2) of the notification. Prima facie, the demand is also not barred by limitation for the reason that the assessees never disclosed the fact of availing exemption - plea of financial hardship has not been substantiated with any documentary evidence stay granted partly

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T.
2. Interpretation of clauses in the notification regarding exemption limits.
3. Consideration of financial hardship plea.
4. Direction for pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.
5. Consequences of failure to comply with pre-deposit direction.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 7,51,956/- along with interest and penalty. The demand arose due to the denial of exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. based on the gross amount charged for an individual consignment exceeding Rs. 750/-.

2. The contention of the assessees that they fall under clause (1) of the notification due to the consignment amount ranging between Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1,500/- was found prima facie untenable in light of the clear language of clause (2) of the notification. The demand was considered not barred by limitation as the assessees failed to disclose availing exemption for consignments exceeding Rs. 750/-.

3. The plea of financial hardship was raised, but the lack of substantiating documentary evidence led to the conclusion that no prima facie case for unconditional waiver was established. Consequently, a pre-deposit of Rs. 3,50,000/- was directed within 8 weeks, with the balance tax, interest, and penalty waived pending appeal.

4. Non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was warned to result in the vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice. The applicants were allowed to comply by reversing credit, subject to verification by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent.

5. The judgment concluded with a directive for compliance reporting by a specified date, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the pre-deposit conditions to maintain the stay on recovery pending the appeal process.