2014 (6) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsistent with the stand taken by the appellant in their correspondence with the Department, they took registration under BAS and other services and started paying service tax accordingly on the activities covered by the very same agreements. Prima facie, the appellant cannot be said to have suppressed material facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - stay granted.
Mr. P.G. Chacko and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Ravi Shankar and Mr. K.S. Naveen Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Singla, Commissioner(AR) Order Per: P.G. Chacko: This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the adjudged dues. The impugned order passed by the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onditions of the relevant agreements, a prima facie view was taken in their favour and we classified the activity under 'information technology software service' and accordingly waiver and stay were granted in the cited cases. Per contra, the learned Commissioner(AR), at the outset, refers to a Final Order passed by a co-ordinate Bench (at Chennai) in the case viz. Future Focus Infotech India (P) Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai [2010(18) STR 308 (Tri. Cehnnai)] wherein, reportedly on a similar set of facts, predeposit was ordered. In his rejoinder regarding case law, the learned counsel points out that the decision in Future Focus case was considered by this Bench while granting waiver and stay in favour of Aztecsoft Ltd. (supra). 2. Both sides have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gainst the appellant. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel has shifted focus to limitation. We have heard the learned Commissioner(AR) also on this issue. The show-cause notice in this case was issued on 20/04/2010 for recovery of service tax for the period from 16/06/2005. As service tax was paid from 01/08/2006 albeit under a different head, we have to examine the plea of limitation in relation to the period from 16/06/2005 to 31/07/2006, which period is indisputably beyond the normal period of limitation. It appears from the records that there was a spate of correspondence between the appellant and the Department originating in July 2006. In a letter dt. 18/07/2006, the Superintendent of Service Tax-Anti Evasion required the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X