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>Tribunal grants full waiver on pre-deposit, stresses clear allegations in Show Cause Notice</h1> <h3>MAHAKOSHAL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a full waiver of the pre-deposit amount. The decision emphasized the necessity of clear allegations ... - Issues:1. Allegation of non-payment of Service Tax and penalty.2. Contention regarding the nature of the appellant's business activities.3. Dispute over the invocation of the larger period in the Show Cause Notice.4. Financial hardship plea by the appellant.5. Interpretation of suppression of facts and the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the requirement to pre-deposit Service Tax and penalty, arguing they were not engaged in Management Consulting but solely in transportation services. They highlighted their financial transparency through declared receipts in the Balance Sheet as a Private Ltd. Co.2. The appellant's counsel challenged the findings, asserting they were beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. The primary argument was against the invocation of the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, emphasizing that the Notice did not allege suppression or invoke a larger period.3. The Commissioner deemed the appellant's non-registration as a form of suppression, justifying the extension of the period for investigation. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing precedents where mere non-registration did not automatically imply suppression of facts. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument on the time bar issue, granting a full waiver of the pre-deposit amount.4. The appellant pleaded financial hardship, stating they lacked the funds claimed due to their limited scope of operations. Despite this, the Tribunal granted a stay on recovery pending appeal disposal, acknowledging the appellant's strong case on the time bar issue.5. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the necessity of clear allegations in the Show Cause Notice to invoke the larger period based on suppression of facts. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal to proceed without pre-deposit and mandating an expedited hearing within 180 days.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the key legal issues raised in the case, focusing on the interpretation of relevant provisions and precedents to arrive at a just decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
