2007 (11) TMI 15 - HC - Service Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision Denying Petitioner's Pre-Deposit Waiver Request

AANEX SERVICES Versus UNION OF INDIA

The High Court upheld the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision denying the petitioner's request for waiver of pre-deposit. The ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit -Petitioner availed service tax credit on the basis of photocopy receipts and in the receipts doesn't mentioned any proper detail - Petition filed by the assessee set aside Issues:1. Challenge against the order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the waiver of pre-deposit.2. Availing service tax credit based on photocopy receipts from Indian Air Lines.3. Allegations of not being entitled to Cenvat credit and evading service tax.4. Lack of specific details in the documents provided by the petitioner.5. Discretion exercised by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal.6. Petition's failure and subsequent dismissal.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal had partly accepted the petitioner's request to waive the payment of pre-deposit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to Cenvat credit and was guilty of evading service tax by withholding specific details in the documents provided. The Tribunal's decision was based on relevant considerations, and the High Court deemed the writ petition meritless, leading to its dismissal.2. The petitioner had availed service tax credit amounting to Rs. 13,51,976 based on photocopy receipts issued by Indian Air Lines. However, a demand was raised, questioning the eligibility of the petitioner for Cenvat credit. It was found that the documents lacked essential information such as the address of recipients, description, classification, and value of taxable services, as well as the registration number of the service provider. This lack of specificity led to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case in their favor, nor could they establish the balance of convenience.3. The allegations against the petitioner included not being entitled to Cenvat credit and deliberately evading service tax by suppressing crucial facts. The documents provided by the petitioner did not meet the requirements under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The absence of essential details in the receipts led to the determination that there was no proof of financial hardship warranting the waiver of pre-deposit under Rule 35 F of the Rules. These findings contributed to the decision to dismiss the petition.4. The High Court emphasized that once the Commissioner (Appeals) had exercised discretion in a particular manner, which was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal, it would be inappropriate for the Court to deviate from that decision. The order had taken into account all relevant features, and as such, the Court found no grounds to overturn the decision. Consequently, the petition was deemed a failure and was dismissed by the Court.