TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a service tax dispute arising from processing activities treated as Business Auxiliary Service, and whether the benefit of exemption notifications and small scale exemption was available on a prima facie basis.
Analysis: The appellants' activities were treated as falling prima facie within the clause of Business Auxiliary Service covering production or processing of goods for or on behalf of clients. The appellants relied on Notification No. 8/2005 dated 01.03.2005 for exemption where goods are produced using client-supplied material and returned for use in manufacture of excisable goods, and also on the small scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 dated 01.03.2005 as enlarged by Notification No. 4/2007 dated 01.03.2007 and Notification No. 8/2008 dated 01.03.2008. On the record, the first five appellants were found to have a prima facie case for complete waiver, while the remaining appellants were found prima facie eligible only to the extent of partial exemption and were directed to make limited pre-deposits.
Conclusion: Complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted to the first five appellants, while the remaining appellants were directed to make partial pre-deposits as a condition for stay of recovery.
TaxTMI 
