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>Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery for Service Tax with Penalties: Appellants' Favorable Tribunal Decision</h1> <h3>MAHI AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & ST., GUNTUR</h3> MAHI AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & ST., GUNTUR - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 300 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of Service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and 'GTA service' for specific periods.2. Dispute over demand of Service tax under 'BAS' and 'GTA services' based on amendments and definitions.3. Prima facie case analysis for exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. and Stay Orders cited.4. Reference to previous Tribunal decisions for similar cases under 'GTA services.'5. Opposition by the Additional Commissioner based on findings by the learned Commissioner.Analysis:1. The judgment involves two separate stay applications concerning the waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of significant amounts of Service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and 'GTA service' for specific periods, along with penalties imposed on the appellant.2. The dispute primarily revolves around the demand of Service tax under 'BAS' and 'GTA services' following an amendment to the definition of 'Business Auxiliary services' effective from 16-6-2005. The appellants contested the demand, arguing that the activities undertaken amounted to 'manufacture' or were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T.3. The Tribunal considered the prima facie case presented by the appellants, supported by the Board's Circular and previous Stay Orders, indicating eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. for the demand under 'BAS.' The Tribunal also noted the appellant's prima facie case against the demand of Service tax under 'GTA services' based on previous Tribunal decisions.4. Reference was made to previous Tribunal decisions, such as Lakshminarayana Mining Co. v. CST, Bangalore, to support the appellant's case against the demand of Service tax under 'GTA services.' The appellant argued that the learned Commissioner did not follow relevant case law without providing sufficient reasons.5. The Additional Commissioner opposed the applications based on the findings of the learned Commissioner, highlighting the presence of case laws against the appellant. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the prima facie case made by the appellants and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the amounts adjudged against both appellants.In conclusion, the judgment analyzed the demands of Service tax under 'BAS' and 'GTA services' in detail, considering the arguments presented by the appellants, previous Tribunal decisions, and relevant legal provisions to grant the waiver and stay of recovery in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 