2010 (4) TMI 452 - AT - Service Tax

Stay Clearing and forwarding agent services - The contention of the appellants is that the appellants entered into an agreement with various State Electricity Boards and Others in respect of supervision of supply of coal and the appellants also supplied coal to Maharashtra State Electricity Board regarding which a separate demand has been raised treating as a provider of Clearing and Forwarding (C & F) service. Tribunal waived pre-deposit in respect of appellant for same activity. Held that pre deposit waived.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties.
2. Challenge to the stay order by the appellants.
3. Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit based on previous Tribunal decisions.
4. Request for early hearing by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an appeal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties against the adjudication order demanding service tax as a Clearing and Forwarding (C & F) service provider. The Tribunal initially directed the deposit of a significant amount for hearing, which was challenged by the appellants. The High Court set aside the order, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to address the judgment relied upon. The Tribunal was directed to rehear the matter considering the observations made, ensuring natural justice and the right to be heard.

2. The appellants contended that they had agreements with State Electricity Boards for coal supply supervision, leading to a separate demand as a C & F service provider. They highlighted previous Mumbai Tribunal orders waiving pre-deposit for similar activities. The Tribunal noted the consistency principle in judicial decisions and observed that the demand in question had been confirmed previously. Consequently, the Tribunal granted total waiver of pre-deposit for service tax, interest, and penalties, staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency.

3. The Revenue engaged a Special Counsel for the case, and the stay petition was adjourned twice at their request. The Tribunal examined the agreements related to the appeal and the present dispute, finding similar terms. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment emphasizing consistency in Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal granted the waiver based on the confirmed demand for the same activity. The appeal was listed for an early hearing at the Revenue's request to expedite the process.

This judgment addresses the application for waiver of pre-deposit, challenges to the initial stay order, the consideration of previous Tribunal decisions for waiver, and the request for an early hearing by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice, consistency in decisions, and the need for a fair opportunity to address relevant judgments, ultimately granting the waiver and expediting the appeal process.