2009 (11) TMI 546 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - order traversed beyond the proposals contained in the show cause notice which had been adjudicated by the original authority - original authority vide his order denied the benefit of Notifications No. 32/04 on the sole ground that the benefit was not available to persons like the appellants who paid tax in terms of Section 68(2) of the Act Held that - demand not in accordance with proposal in show cause notice and prima facie not sustainable pre-deposit waived

Summary

Issues:
Impugned order revising the Assistant Commissioner's decision regarding Service tax on GTA services availed by the appellant. Application for waiver of pre-deposit based on impugned order going beyond show cause notice proposals.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal regarding the revision of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner concerning the demand for Service tax on GTA services availed by the appellant between January 2005 and September 2006. The impugned order demanded a specific amount from the appellant, which the appellant contested by filing an application for the waiver of pre-deposit. The appellant argued that the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice's proposals, as adjudicated by the original authority. The original authority had denied certain benefits to the appellant based on specific grounds related to the payment of tax under Section 68(2) of the Act. However, the impugned order found the appellant ineligible for the benefit of a Notification on different grounds, leading to the demand for tax.

Upon hearing both parties, including the learned SDR who did not dispute the factual position, the Tribunal carefully reviewed the case records and submissions. The Tribunal concluded that the liabilities imposed on the appellant were prima facie unsustainable as they did not align with the proposals outlined in the show cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the adjudged dues and stayed the recovery pending the final decision in the appeal. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by Member (T) P. Karthikeyan, highlighting the Tribunal's intervention to protect the appellant's interests based on the discrepancy between the impugned order and the original proposals.