9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been raised is 2004-09. Even agreeing with the respondents that the CBEC Circular dated 13.10.1997 was superseded by the later Circular dated 23.08.2007, it would imply, prima facie, that the earlier Circular dated 13.10.1997 held the field till 23.08.2007. It is in this context learned counsel was asked to bifurcate the tax demand of approximately ₹ 118 crores between the two periods, i.e., from 2004 upto 23.08.2007 and from the latter date till the end of the relevant period in 2009. Therefore, considering the entire period 2004-09 and the tax demand of approximately ₹ 118 crores, the period prior to 23.08.2007 would entail, if at all, a tax demand of approximately ₹ 70 crores. Thus the requirement of predeposit of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the stipulated time, the realization of the balance tax demand of ₹ 38.78 crores as well as penalty of ₹ 125 crores and interest on the service tax demand shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal or till 03.12.2013 whichever date is earlier. 3. The entire controversy in this appeal relates to the issue of chargeability of service tax on the free calls which are provided by the appellant to its employees. According to the revenue, if the employees had not been granted the facility of free calls, they would have paid for them and consequently, service tax would have been collected by the revenue on such payments. The fact that the appellant has given this facility of free calls has translated into a deprivation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on another Circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 01.12.2008 in support of his contention that there cannot be a service when there is a relationship of an employer and an employee and that the entire service of the employee is controlled by the contract of employment. There is no other service that is provided by the employer to the employee. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to partial relief at this stage. This is so because the period in question for which the demand has been raised is 2004-09. Even if we agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the CBEC Circular dated 13.10.1997 was super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
