2015 (10) TMI 698 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - Issues which have been raised on behalf of the assessee would have to be adjudicated upon only at the final hearing of the appeal. The impugned order of the Tribunal is a reasoned order and cogent reasons have been indicated for directing a pre-deposit of the service tax together with proportionate interest. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against order for waiver of pre-deposit by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Confirmation of demand by Adjudicating Authority.
3. Partial relief granted by Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Tribunal's order for pre-deposit of service tax and interest.
5. Classification of services rendered and retrospective amendment applicability.
6. Adjudication of raised issues at final hearing.
7. Lack of substantial question of law in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court stemmed from an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the waiver of pre-deposit. The original Adjudicating Authority had confirmed a demand of &8377; 11.51 lacs with interest and penalties, invoking the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) later granted partial relief, reducing the demand to &8377; 7.70 lacs, but upholding it partially. The Tribunal then ordered pre-deposit of the service tax and interest within four weeks.

2. The Tribunal's order was based on the classification of services rendered and the applicability of a retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the services rendered prior to a specific date could not be exempt from service tax merely due to a later classification change. It also clarified that the retrospective amendment was only applicable to non-commercial Government buildings, which did not include the buildings of a specific entity mentioned in the case.

3. The Tribunal's decision to order pre-deposit was supported by the lack of a prima facie case justifying a waiver. The Tribunal emphasized that a detailed analysis of facts and contentions would occur during the final hearing. The Tribunal directed compliance within a specified timeframe and waived further interest and penalties pending the appeal's resolution.

4. The High Court observed that the issues raised by the appellant would be addressed during the final hearing. It noted that the Tribunal's order was reasoned and provided cogent reasons for the pre-deposit directive. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not present any substantial question of law. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding pre-deposit, emphasizing the need for detailed analysis during the final hearing and finding no substantial legal questions in the appeal.