2009 (7) TMI 251 - AT - Service Tax

Demand under the category of management, maintenance and repair - Prima facie, we are satisfied that a public sector which operates under a public policy and norms shall not prefer to cause evasion to revenue. Ld. Counsel s averment that they were in correspondence with the Finance Ministry for necessary exemption appears to have force for consideration. If such a submission is proper, the limitation aspect may come to the rescue of the appellant. stay granted

Summary

Issues: Stay application dismissal due to absence of COD clearance, outstanding demand for maintenance and repair services, invocation of extended period for service tax liability, waiver of pre-deposit during appeal.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved various issues. Firstly, the appellant's stay application was initially dismissed due to the absence of COD clearance. However, both parties confirmed that the COD clearance had been obtained, leading to the restoration of the stay application and appeal. The appellant, represented by Shri P.J. Joseph, contested a demand of Rs. 12,67,43,996 for maintenance and repair services, claiming to have already deposited Rs. 1220.47 Lakhs, leaving an outstanding demand of Rs. 46.97 Lakhs.

Secondly, the appellant argued that the show-cause notice dated 4-12-2006, covering the period from July 2003 to September 2005, should not invoke the extended period for determining past liability as there was no intention to evade service tax. The appellant had sought exemption from service tax for services provided to the Defence Sector, eventually registering and paying service tax in September 2004. The appellant requested a stay on recovery of Rs. 46.97 Lakhs, along with interest and penalty, until the appeal's disposal.

On the other hand, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs objected to the appellant's stance, citing discrepancies in the appellant's gross receipts and findings of default. The Authority supported the demand for payment without a waiver of pre-deposit. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's efforts to comply with public policy and norms, noting their correspondence with the Finance Ministry for exemption. Considering the substantial deposit made by the appellant, the Tribunal directed the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amount during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of COD clearance, outstanding demand for maintenance and repair services, invocation of the extended period for service tax liability, and the waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal process, providing a detailed analysis and ruling on each matter based on the arguments presented by the appellant and the Respondent.