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>Service tax demand upheld for tour operator services; deposit Rs. 25k for stay on recovery.</h1> <h3>Nimbark Yatra Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur – I</h3> Nimbark Yatra Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur – I - [2012] 34 STT 31 (NEWDELHI - CESTAT) Issues:1. Confirmation of service tax demand against the appellant for providing tour operator services without payment.2. Consideration of limitation period for the demand raised.3. Decision on the stay petition and pre-deposit amount.Confirmation of Service Tax Demand:The judgment confirms the service tax demand of Rs. 84,496 against the appellant for providing tour operator services without paying service tax from 2002-2007. The demand was based on the recovery of bill books/receipt books from the appellant's premises during a search, showing tours to various places. The lower authorities confirmed the demand after allowing abatement. The appellant did not present a strong prima facie case on merits during the proceedings.Consideration of Limitation Period:Although the appellant lacked a strong prima facie case on merits, the tribunal considered the limitation aspect. The demand for the period 2002-2007 was raised on 18-12-2006, invoking a longer period of limitation. The tribunal noted that the demand might be barred by limitation due to the unclear legal framework regarding service tax during the relevant period. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,000 within 8 weeks. This deposit would lead to the waiver of the balance amount of duty and the entire penalty, with a stay on recovery during the appeal.Decision on Stay Petition and Pre-Deposit Amount:In deciding the stay petition, the tribunal acknowledged the lack of a strong case on merits but highlighted the potential limitation issue. Despite this, the tribunal exercised discretion by directing the appellant to make a specific pre-deposit to secure a stay on the recovery of the remaining duty and penalty during the appeal process. By ordering a partial deposit and granting a stay on recovery, the tribunal balanced the interests of both parties pending the final resolution of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
