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 Pre-Deposit Waived, Demand Set Aside</h1> <h3>M/s. Shri Ram Associates Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Jaipur</h3> M/s. Shri Ram Associates Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Jaipur - [2012] 36 STT 353 (NEWDELHI - CESTAT) Issues:1. Pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties2. Classification of services under Business Auxiliary services3. Demand of limitation based on the period of noticeAnalysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties, which were initially imposed on the appellants. The Bench decided to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit amounting to Rs.53,598/- along with the penalties before proceeding to decide the appeal itself. This step was taken as the issue was already covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal.2. The main issue in the case revolved around the classification of services provided by the appellant. The Service Tax was confirmed against the appellant based on the argument that their activity of marketing loan schemes from various banks and financial institutions fell under the category of Business Auxiliary services. The advocate for the appellant acknowledged that a similar issue had been decided against them in a previous case, but contested the demand of limitation.3. The demand of limitation was a crucial aspect of the case, with the show cause notice being issued on 7.2.2007 for the period from 1.7.03 to 31.8.04, invoking the longer period of limitation. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Kanpur, where it was noted that decisions favoring the assesses existed, leading to the demand being considered barred by limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that in situations where judicial forums interpreted matters differently, the extended period of time could not be invoked for raising demands. As a result, the demand in the present case was also held to be barred by limitation, leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalties imposed, with the appeal being allowed and consequential relief granted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
