2015 (7) TMI 150 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - translation service and interpretation service - whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on translation service and interpretation service provided by them - Held that - Decision in the case of Mayflower Languages Service Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 1239 (CESTAT-Bang.) would be applicable in respect of translation service. The only difference which we noticed in this case is in the case of Mayflower Languages Service Pvt. Ltd., they have taken expert opinion as to the liability and this was considered while passing the order. In this case there is no such claim made by the appellant. Nevertheless having regard to the fact that according to the learned CA the appellants are partnership firm and after 2006 the business is nowhere functioning and appellants have a financial difficulty, they can pay an amount of ₹ 50,000/-. We consider that if the appellant deposits ₹ 50,000/- that would be sufficient for hearing the appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the Stay Order which required the appellant to deposit the entire amount of service tax and 50% of the penalty, and in our opinion deposit of ₹ 50,000/- would be sufficient, we consider it appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal after the appellant deposits an amount of ₹ 50,000/- without insisting on any further pre-deposit. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement for service tax and penalty.
2. Liability to pay service tax on translation and interpretation services.
3. Applicability of SSI exemption and non-leviability of service tax.
4. Classification of services under Business Support Service category.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement of the entire service tax amount and 50% penalty, as ordered in the Stay Order. The dispute revolved around the appellant's liability to pay service tax on translation and interpretation services provided by them. The appellant argued for SSI exemption in the first year and contended that no service tax was leviable in the last year due to SSI exemption eligibility. Additionally, the appellant claimed that interpretation services provided should not fall under Business Support Service. The appellant referenced a previous case but failed to provide expert opinion on liability. Considering the financial difficulty of the appellant, a deposit of Rs. 50,000 was deemed sufficient for the appeal to be heard.

2. The respondent argued that the services provided by the appellant fell under the Business Support Service category and contended that all issues raised by the appellant had been considered. The Tribunal found that the decision in a previous case was applicable to translation services, noting the absence of expert opinion in the current case. Despite this, considering the appellant's financial situation, a reduced deposit of Rs. 50,000 was considered adequate for the appeal to proceed.

3. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal after the appellant deposited Rs. 50,000, without insisting on any further pre-deposit. The appellant was directed to comply within four weeks and report to the Commissioner (Appeals) by a specified date. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to pass an order on merits after providing the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.