2010 (3) TMI 439 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty- the assessee is that they were producing goods for their clients and not on behalf of their clients and therefore not liable to pay Service tax for the period from 16-6-2005 as the definition in the Finance Act was amended only with effect from 16-6-2005 vide Notification 19/2005-S.T., dated 7-1-2005 to cover the production of goods for or on behalf of their clients . Held that- the appellants have made out a prima facie case on merits in the light of the Tribunal s decision and in the absence of any finding by the authorities below on the argument that the production of goods by the assessee was only for the client during the relevant period and therefore we grant waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount in question and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994; Liability to pay Service tax for production of goods on behalf of clients; Applicability of amendment in the Finance Act from 16-6-2005; Bar on demand by limitation.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, involved an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax amounting to Rs. 3,18,089 under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute arose from the appellant producing goods for clients during the period from 10-9-01 to 16-6-2005, with a show cause notice covering the period from 10-9-2001 to 31-3-2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty imposed. The appellant contended that they produced goods for clients, not on behalf of them, and thus should not be liable for Service tax post the amendment effective from 16-6-2005, as per Notification 19/2005-S.T. The appellant relied on the Tribunal's stay order in Pearl Packaging v. CCE, Salem and Veesons Energy Systems (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy to support their argument. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the demand was time-barred as they promptly registered with the Commissionerate of Service Tax upon direction, negating any suppression of facts that would warrant an extended limitation period.

The respondent opposed the appellant's prayer for waiver, echoing the findings of the lower authorities on both the merits of the demand and the limitation aspect. However, upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants had established a prima facie case on merits, especially in light of the Tribunal's decision and the absence of any conclusive finding by the lower authorities regarding the nature of goods production for clients during the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the disputed amount pending the appeal, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions involved in the case.

This judgment underscores the significance of legal arguments, precedents, and the interpretation of statutory provisions in determining the liability for Service tax, especially concerning the production of goods for clients and the applicability of relevant amendments. It also highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the impact of timely registration on the limitation period for tax demands.