2009 (6) TMI 391 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting services rendered by person outside country - Appellant argues that while the law was not in force for recovery of service tax from a service provider as a Consultant outside the country, this appellant is not liable to service tax for such Consultant Service rendered. The period involved is 2001-2005. The Id. DR submits that even if law is not applicable for a part of the period that shall apply to the rest of the part of the period assessed. - Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of J. K. Synthetic Ltd. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.), we restore the stay application to remove hardship to the appellant, in view of merits of the case. Appreciating that the appellant has taken shelter of Larger Bench decision in the case of Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 - TMI - 30059 - CESTAT-LB and appreciating ratio laid down by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association reported in 2009 - TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY we waive the requirement of pre-deposit during the pendency of appeal

Summary

Issues: Stay application restoration, liability for service tax on Consultant Service, waiver of pre-deposit requirement

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue of restoring a stay application was considered. The appellant's consultant faced difficulties in reaching the court for a hearing due to which an application was made to remove the obstacles. The consultant argued that the appellant would suffer if the stay application was not restored, emphasizing the merit in their case. The Deputy Registrar had no objection to the restoration application due to the difficulties expressed by the consultant.

Regarding the liability for service tax on Consultant Service rendered outside the country between 2001-2005, the consultant contended that the appellant was not liable for service tax as the law was not in force for recovery during that period. However, the Deputy Registrar argued that even if the law was not applicable for a part of the period, it should apply to the rest of the assessed period.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of J. K. Synthetic Ltd. and decided to restore the stay application to alleviate the appellant's hardship based on the merits of the case. The Tribunal considered the appellant's reliance on the Larger Bench decision in the case of Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. and the ratio laid down by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit during the appeal's pendency, allowing the miscellaneous application and disposing of the stay matter by recalling the previous order dated 27-4-09.