2013 (10) TMI 1158 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal dismisses stay order modification requests, emphasizes evidence compliance.

M/s Indus Motor Company (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin

The Tribunal rejected all miscellaneous applications seeking modification of a stay order and deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores within 6 weeks. The appellant's ... Application for modification of Stay application based on the stay order in case of Sai Service Station Ltd [2013 (10) TMI 1155 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - Dealership agreement with M/s Maruthi - Held that:- order was passed by this Tribunal after taking into account all the submissions made by learned consultant as well as the departmental representative. Both sides were present in the court. One of the grounds taken by the appellant was ‘dealership agreement’ is a part of the records of department but they forgot that the department is also a party before us and the departmental record was not a part of the records before the Tribunal. Further, without producing the ‘dealership agreement’, the case of Sai Services Station Ltd. was compared to the present case. Without ‘dealership agreement’ entered into by appellant and M/s Maruthi and without examining the terms and conditions of the agreement, vis-`-vis agreement of Sai Services Station Ltd. it would not be possible to come to a conclusion that the issue involved in the present case is similar to that of Sai Services Station Ltd. as claimed by the appellant now. We do not understand what purpose it would serve since the appellant had enough time to report compliance of the order. In the result, none of the applications deserves consideration. In fact, the appellant bombarded the Tribunal with four misc. applications and have forgotten the primary requirement of proper presentation of their case with all documentary evidence at the time of hearing the stay petition - Stay denied. Issues:1. Modification of stay order and deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores within 6 weeks.2. Comparison of appellant's case with M/s Sai Services Station Ltd.3. Authority of Central Government to levy tax.4. Proper presentation of case and submission of documentary evidence.Analysis:1. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 2.5 crores within 6 weeks as per the Misc. Order dated 18.4.2013. However, during compliance, the appellant sought modification of the stay order and presented four miscellaneous applications (Nos. 26971, 27381-27383/2013) requesting various changes in the order.2. The appellant argued that their case was similar to M/s Sai Services Station Ltd., a competitor, where unconditional waiver and stay were granted. They emphasized similarities in business operations and dealership agreements with Maruthi vehicles. The appellant contended that the stay order should be modified based on these grounds.3. The appellant raised concerns about the authority of the Central Government to include purchase price benefits in the turnover for services provided by a dealer. The Tribunal clarified that it was not the appropriate forum to decide on this tax levy issue, indicating that such matters require detailed examination at the final hearing stage.4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to produce the dealership agreement during the initial hearing, which was crucial for comparing their case with M/s Sai Services Station Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of presenting a prima facie case during the stay petition, highlighting the appellant's lack of proper evidence submission.5. Despite considering extensive submissions from both sides, the Tribunal rejected all miscellaneous applications. The appellant was given the opportunity to make a pre-deposit within four weeks and report compliance. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the order, even if the stay order was not delivered before the specified date, as it was dictated in open court with the appellant's consultant present.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the need for proper presentation of evidence, the importance of a prima facie case during the stay petition, and the rejection of miscellaneous applications due to lack of substantial evidence and compliance.