Pre-deposit waiver in service tax dispute denied where no evidence supported commission and exemption claims.

In a service tax dispute, complete waiver of pre-deposit was refused because the applicant did not produce documentary proof that commission was received directly from mutual fund companies or that it acted as a mutual fund distributor or agent. The Tribunal treated the cited precedent as factually distinguishable and noted the absence of any plea of financial hardship. The claim based on Notification No. 13/2003-ST was not accepted for waiver purposes, and the applicant was required to deposit 25% of the service tax demanded within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in a service tax dispute and whether the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-ST was available on the facts shown.

Analysis: The applicant relied on the characterisation of mutual fund units as goods and on the exemption notification to contend that the activities fell outside Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not produced documentary evidence showing receipt of commission directly from mutual fund companies or that it was acting as a mutual fund distributor or agent. The cited precedent was held distinguishable on facts. In the absence of supporting evidence and any plea of financial hardship, the Tribunal held that a complete waiver was not justified.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to total waiver of pre-deposit and was directed to deposit 25% of the service tax demanded within the stipulated time; the exemption claim was not accepted for the purpose of waiver.

---