2014 (2) TMI 668 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Penalty under Section 78 - Stock Broker Services - Held that - Following decision of Saurin Investments Pvt. Limited 2009 (7) TMI 131 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Confirmation of service tax liability on Computer Linkage Charges, Commission from underwriters, and Inter Settlement Charges.
3. Applicability of previous judgments on similar cases.
4. Requirement of deposit by the appellant for the final disposal of the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 29,18,176/- under the Finance Act, 1994. The lower authorities confirmed the amounts due to services categorized as Stock Broker Services. The appellant argued against the demand, citing specific grounds for each service. Notably, the appellant referenced previous cases where the Tribunal granted stay on similar charges. The appellant contended that the service tax liability on certain charges was not valid, emphasizing issues of limitation and lack of service provision to clients in specific instances.

The Superintendent (A.R.) countered the appellant's arguments, highlighting the lack of income details provided by the Company concerning Inter Settlement Charges. After considering the submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal deliberated on the service tax liabilities related to Computer Linkage Charges, Inter Settlement Charges, and Commission from underwriters. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicability of previous judgments favoring the appellant's position on certain charges. However, the issue of commission on public issues received from underwriters was deemed debatable and required further examination during the final disposal of the appeal.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- within eight weeks to facilitate the appeal's hearing and disposal. Compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar for further proceedings. The Tribunal outlined the conditions for the appellant to proceed with the appeal, indicating the necessity of the deposit for a comprehensive consideration of the debatable issues raised. The judgment concluded with the directive for compliance and subsequent proceedings scheduled before the Bench for an appropriate order.