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>CESTAT Ahmedabad: Deposit Rs. 3,00,000 for service tax waiver</h1> <h3>M/s. Kanji Raja & Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Rajkot</h3> M/s. Kanji Raja & Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Rajkot - TMI Issues involved: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalties related to cleaning services provided by the appellant.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, deals with two stay petitions filed by the appellant seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalties confirmed by lower authorities for the provision of cleaning services. The appellant claimed to be engaged in removing waste from a factory premises and providing housekeeping services, not cleaning services. The tribunal noted that removal of waste and housekeeping could fall under the category of cleaning services. The legal submissions regarding the distinction between cleaning services and housekeeping services were considered, but a detailed analysis was deemed necessary at the final disposal of the appeal. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 3,00,000 within eight weeks and report compliance. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts were allowed subject to compliance, and recovery was stayed pending appeal disposal.The main issue revolved around whether the appellant's activities constituted cleaning services, as claimed by the revenue authorities, or were limited to housekeeping services, as argued by the appellant. The tribunal observed that removal of waste and housekeeping could be considered part of cleaning services, necessitating a detailed examination at the final disposal stage. The distinction between cleaning services and housekeeping services was acknowledged, but a definitive conclusion was deferred pending further examination.The tribunal's decision to direct the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and report compliance aimed to ensure that the appellant fulfilled certain conditions before the appeal could be heard and disposed of. This approach allowed for a structured process to be followed, balancing the interests of both parties involved in the dispute. The stay granted on recovery of balance amounts pending appeal disposal provided temporary relief to the appellant, subject to compliance with the tribunal's directives.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the need for a detailed analysis of the nature of services provided by the appellant to determine whether they fell under the category of cleaning services. The tribunal's decision to require a deposit from the appellant and stay recovery of balance amounts reflected a balanced approach to addressing the issues raised in the stay petitions while ensuring compliance and due process in the appeal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
