2014 (5) TMI 341 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants waiver of pre-deposit, stays recovery during appeal, based on new legal interpretation.

Grey Worldwide (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai -I

Grey Worldwide (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai -I - 2016 (46) S.T.R. 609 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Modification of stay order requiring pre-deposit by appellant.2. Inclusion of discounts and incentives in the value of services under Business Auxiliary Service.3. Interpretation of law regarding change in circumstances for modification of orders.Analysis:1. The appellant filed miscellaneous applications seeking modification of the stay order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 85 lakhs within eight weeks. The Tribunal had directed compliance by a specific date.2. The main issue considered by the Tribunal was whether discounts and incentives received by the appellants from media should be included in the value of services provided under 'Business Auxiliary Service.' The Tribunal referred to previous orders and interpretations, including a case where it was held that such discounts and incentives should not be considered as charges for services rendered.3. The appellant's counsel relied on a decision by the High Court of Gujarat, highlighting that a change in interpretation of law, as seen in previous tribunal orders, should be considered a change in circumstances warranting modification of the interim order. The counsel argued that the law had been interpreted in favor of the appellants.4. The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner (AR), contended that the Tribunal cannot review its own orders, citing precedents. Allowing modifications would amount to reviewing earlier decisions, as per the Revenue's argument.5. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments from both sides and referred to legal principles. It noted that while the Tribunal cannot review its own orders, modifications can be considered in case of a change in circumstances. The Tribunal found that there was indeed a change in circumstances based on the interpretation of law in recent orders favoring the appellants. Therefore, the modification application was allowed, and the order requiring pre-deposit was waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.6. Finally, the Tribunal directed the registry to tag the appeal with a specific number for the final hearing, concluding the judgment.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented by both sides, legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal regarding the modification of the stay order.