2013 (10) TMI 1013 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds deposit order in stay modification application, stresses compliance with set deadline

The Tribunal dismissed the application for modification of a stay order, upholding the requirement for the appellant to deposit Rs.15 lakhs out of a total ... Modification of stay order [2013 (6) TMI 539 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Works contract - benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST - Held that:- Various accounting system and pattern followed by the appellant is confusing and is not bringing out any details for us to consider the issue at the prima facie stage. We have also recorded that the issue is highly debatable and needs considerable time to come to a conclusion on merits. Though ld. counsel tried to submit that the entire issue has to be broken down into different demands, we are of the view that at the stay stage, we could not have gone into any further details. Accordingly, we are of the view that our order of directing the appellant to deposit Rs.15 lakhs out of the total demand of approximately Rs.94 lakhs is correct and does not require any reconsideration or modification. The application filed by the appellant for the modification of our stay order is dismissed. Issues: Application for modification of stay order, consideration of arguments raised, confusion in accounting system, pre-deposit compliance deadline1. Application for Modification of Stay Order:The judgment pertains to an application filed for the modification of a stay order dated 29.04.13, where the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.15 lakhs and report compliance by 01.07.13. The counsel argued that the Bench did not consider various arguments, including abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST, denial of works contract composition scheme, and benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's accounting system was confusing and did not provide sufficient details for consideration at the prima facie stage. Despite the counsel's attempt to break down the issue into different demands, the Tribunal held that they could not delve into further details at the stay stage. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for modification, upholding the order to deposit Rs.15 lakhs out of the total demand of approximately Rs.94 lakhs.2. Consideration of Arguments Raised:The Tribunal thoroughly heard both sides and reviewed the records. It acknowledged the complexity and debatable nature of the issue, indicating that more time was needed to reach a conclusion on the merits. The counsel's arguments regarding the need to analyze different demands were not accepted at the stay stage. The Tribunal emphasized that the order to deposit Rs.15 lakhs was appropriate and did not warrant reconsideration or modification based on the information provided during the proceedings.3. Confusion in Accounting System:A significant aspect highlighted in the judgment was the confusion arising from the appellant's accounting system. The Tribunal noted that the pattern followed by the appellant was unclear and failed to present essential details for a thorough assessment of the issue. This lack of clarity in the accounting system contributed to the Tribunal's decision not to entertain further details or breakdown of demands at the stay stage.4. Pre-Deposit Compliance Deadline:Following the dismissal of the application for modification, the appellant's counsel requested additional time to comply with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal granted the request, directing the appellant to deposit the amount within four weeks from the date of the judgment and report compliance by 20.08.13. It was explicitly stated that failure to comply by the specified date would result in the dismissal of the appeal without further leniency, emphasizing the importance of meeting the compliance deadline set by the Tribunal.