TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows appeal on Service Tax liability for Security Agency Service, waives full tax deposit requirement.</h1> <h3>SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE Versus C.C.E., CUS. & S.T., VISAKHAPATNAM-II</h3> The court allowed the petitioner's appeal against the liability to pay Service Tax for providing 'Security Agency Service,' setting aside the order ... Waiver of pre deposit - Security Agency Service - Held that:- Petitioner is the A.P. Special Protection Force, which is a body established under Section 3 of the A.P. Special Protection Force Act, 1991, particularly keeping in view that substantial amounts to the tune of ₹ 1,46,28,223/- have already been deposited, it appears to us that the appeal can be entertained without imposing any further conditions. - impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Liability to pay Service Tax for Security Agency Service; Appeal against Order-in-Original; Pre-deposit requirement by CESTAT.The judgment pertains to a case where the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax determined the petitioner's liability to pay Service Tax for providing 'Security Agency Service' to various organizations from 1-5-2006 to 31-3-2010. The petitioner appealed to the CESTAT challenging the order and seeking a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The CESTAT, in its order, granted relief on the penalty but directed the petitioner to deposit the entire tax component within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be rejected without further reference to the Tribunal.During the hearing, it was revealed that out of the total Service Tax amount determined, the petitioner had already deposited a significant sum. The petitioner argued that this fact was mentioned in the appeal but was disregarded by the CESTAT, which still demanded the full tax component along with interest. Considering that the petitioner was the A.P. Special Protection Force, established under the A.P. Special Protection Force Act, 1991, and had already deposited a substantial amount, the court concluded that the appeal could proceed without additional conditions.Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the second respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original, ensuring a fair disposal of the appeal following due process of law. The judgment did not impose any costs on the petitioner. Any pending Miscellaneous Petitions in the writ petition were to be closed as a result of this decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
