Service tax valuation turns on gross amount charged, not actual receipt, so pre-deposit waiver was refused.

Service tax valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as based on the gross amount charged for services provided for consideration in money, so prima facie liability did not depend on actual receipt of the amount. In a demand and penalty matter under Section 78, the appellant's first-time contention that the disputed sum had not been received was not accepted as a basis for waiver of pre-deposit. The stay application was rejected and time was granted to deposit the adjudicated demand along with penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit was warranted in a service tax demand and penalty matter, and whether the liability to service tax depended on actual receipt of the consideration.

Analysis: The order records that the demand and equal penalty had been confirmed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It further notes that the appellant had raised for the first time the contention that the disputed amount was not liable to service tax because it had not been received during the relevant period. Referring to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the order states that where service is provided for consideration in money, taxable value is the gross amount charged by the service provider, and therefore the liability to remit service tax does not prima facie appear to depend on actual receipt of the amount.

Outcome: No case was made out for waiver of pre-deposit and the stay application was rejected, with time granted to deposit the adjudicated amount including penalty.

---