2005 (4) TMI 284 - AT - Service Tax

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Assessee only providing online leasing services to their clients for starting IT and other related services

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Allegation of providing consultation services and demand for Service Tax.
3. Nature of services provided - Online leasing services.
4. Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty.
5. Miscellaneous application for pending appeal till receipt of sanction.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins with the consideration of the appellant's request for condonation of a 9-day delay in filing the appeal. The delay is deemed nominal, and after hearing both sides, the explanation provided by the appellant is found satisfactory. Consequently, the COD application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appellants were accused of providing consultation services to clients, leading to a demand for Service Tax. However, they argued that they were solely offering Online leasing services for initiating IT and related services. The tribunal, after hearing both parties, observed that the appellants were primarily engaged in providing Online leasing services for IT purposes and had not offered consultation services beyond leasing their premises. As a result, the stay application was granted unconditionally, with a waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amount and penalty, staying the recovery until the appeal's disposal.

3. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that they were only involved in providing Online leasing services for starting IT operations, not consultation services. Consequently, the stay application was approved, granting a waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty, and staying the recovery until the appeal's resolution.

4. A miscellaneous application was submitted to keep the appeal pending until receiving sanction from the High Power committee. However, the tribunal deemed this application unsustainable and rejected it as in-fructuous.

This judgment showcases the tribunal's thorough consideration of the appellant's explanations and the nature of services provided, leading to decisions on condonation of delay, waiver of pre-deposit, and rejection of the miscellaneous application.