2013 (9) TMI 950 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant instructed to make additional deposit, with waiver for remainder. Stay granted pending appeal, ensuring fair process.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an additional sum within a specified timeframe, allowing waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts. ... Commercial & Industrial Construction Services - Held that:- As regards the Service Tax demand on the services rendered by the appellant for laying the drainage pipeline - this was brought into the category of laying of pipelines of the Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board - Following DINESH CHANDRA AGARWAL INFRACON PVT LTD Versus CCE, AHMEDABAD [2010 (8) TMI 54 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2011 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Prima facie The Service Tax liability was not liable to be discharged by the appellant. As regards the other demands raised for Service Tax liability - we find that the construction of housing colony for police personnel and others also, prima facie, seems to be covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [2010 (11) TMI 81 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. As regards the Service Tax liability on the Construction of Control room, Bus stand and earth filling for Sabarmati river front, we find that the issue needed to be gone in detail vis-a-vis definition of these services – this had to be done only at the time of final disposal of appeal. Stay granted partly. Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of a substantial Service Tax amount, interest, and penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Commercial & Industrial Construction services. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant argued that the demand details were worked out incorrectly by the lower authorities, citing specific cases where similar judgments should apply to their case.The Additional Commissioner (A.R.) representing the respondent contended that the appellant's construction activities did not qualify for exemption, highlighting that certain constructions had commercial aspects like shops and establishments. The respondent argued that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case and should deposit a certain amount for the appeal process to proceed.Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Service Tax demand related to laying drainage pipelines aligned with previous judgments and was not the appellant's liability. Similarly, the construction of housing colonies for specific groups seemed to be covered by relevant Tribunal judgments. However, the Tribunal determined that further analysis was required for the Service Tax liability on constructions like control rooms, bus stands, and earth filling for the riverfront to understand the services' definitions accurately.Considering that the appellant had already deposited a significant amount during the proceedings, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an additional sum within a specified timeframe. Upon compliance, the Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts and stayed the recovery until the appeals were disposed of, ensuring fairness and procedural adherence in the decision-making process.