2010 (1) TMI 429 - AT - Service Tax

Stay Valuation - The issue involved in the case is regarding the taxability of the amounts received by the appellant for providing transportation services to different Companies for pick up and drop of their employees from residence to work place and back. Held that- prima facie case not made out for complete waiver. Amount of more than Rs. 23 Lakhs paid before. Pre deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs directed.

Summary

Issues:
Taxability of amounts received for transportation services provided by the appellant for pick up and drop of employees; Whether the appellant made a prima facie case for complete waiver of the adjudged amounts.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of various amounts, including service tax, interest, and penalties, confirmed by the adjudicating authority for providing 'Tour Operator Services'. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the appellant's ST-3 returns, rejecting the appellant's contention regarding the vehicles used for services. The appellant argued that they used private vehicles on which no service tax was payable, citing precedents supporting their claim. The appellant also presented permits and service agreements to support their case.

In a previous case involving the same appellant, the Tribunal had considered similar submissions regarding the non-taxability of amounts received for transportation services. The Tribunal noted the need for detailed examination of whether the vehicles used could be classified as 'private service vehicles' or 'transport service vehicles', which would be addressed during the final appeal hearing. While acknowledging the appellant's submissions, the Tribunal concluded that a prima facie case for complete waiver of the adjudged amounts was not established. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a further pre-deposit of a specified amount within a set timeframe, considering the amount already deposited during the proceedings. Upon compliance, the condition of pre-deposit for the remaining amount was waived, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.

The judgment emphasized the need for detailed scrutiny of the facts and legal precedents cited by the appellant, indicating that a thorough examination would be conducted during the final appeal hearing. The decision balanced the appellant's submissions with the requirement for pre-deposit, reflecting a cautious approach to the waiver of adjudged amounts. Compliance with the specified pre-deposit condition was crucial for staying the recovery process until the appeal's final resolution, highlighting the procedural significance of timely payments in such cases.