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>Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Denies Installment Payment Request for Service Tax Demand</h1> <h3>Spanco BPO Service Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax.</h3> Spanco BPO Service Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax. - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 108 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Interpretation of Sections 73 and 87 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Consideration of application for payment in installments.4. Comparison with relevant legal precedents.Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal:The Revenue objected to the appeal's maintainability, citing that the impugned order was under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, making it non-appealable before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the order could only be passed under Section 73 of the Act, making the appeal maintainable. The Tribunal analyzed the impugned order and concluded that it was not passed under Section 73, rendering the appeal not maintainable before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Interpretation of Sections 73 and 87 of the Finance Act, 1994:Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 allows appeals against orders under Section 73 or 83A. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not fall under Section 83A, leading to the assessment of whether it was passed under Section 73. Section 73 pertains to cases where service tax has not been levied, paid, short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded. The Tribunal found that the impugned order confirmed the service tax demand without dispute, focusing only on recovery proceedings and the denial of installment payment requests, indicating it was not under Section 73.Issue 3: Consideration of application for payment in installments:The appellant had requested to pay the outstanding service tax in installments due to financial constraints, citing a circular empowering the Commissioner to allow such facilities. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not address the issue of installment payments, leading to the rejection of the appellant's plea. The appellant's argument for non-discrimination in granting installment facilities based on legal precedents was considered but not deemed applicable in this case.Issue 4: Comparison with relevant legal precedents:The appellant referenced legal precedents to support their arguments, including decisions from the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal and stay application, advising the appellant to seek appropriate action before the Commissioner.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of maintainability, statutory interpretation, consideration of installment payments, and comparison with legal precedents, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
