Territorial jurisdiction and abatement guided reduced pre-deposit where receipts outside Delhi were treated as prima facie unsustainable.

Territorial jurisdiction limited the demand to receipts attributable to the Delhi registered office, so receipts from Faridabad, Noida and Alwar were treated as prima facie outside the adjudicating authority's reach. For the balance within Delhi jurisdiction, the Tribunal accepted prima facie entitlement to 67% abatement while computing pre-deposit, directed deposit only on the remaining 33% of the relevant value, and allowed adjustment of amounts already paid. Recovery of the balance was stayed subject to compliance with the reduced pre-deposit direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand relating to receipts pertaining to offices outside the Delhi commissionerate could be sustained by the adjudicating authority; (ii) whether the assessee was prima facie entitled to abatement while working out the pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the demand relating to receipts pertaining to offices outside the Delhi commissionerate could be sustained by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority exercised jurisdiction only over the office registered in Delhi. Receipts attributable to Faridabad, Noida and Alwar fell outside that territorial jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the demand relatable to those locations was treated as not sustainable at the prima facie stage.

Conclusion: The demand relating to receipts outside the Delhi commissionerate was held not sustainable prima facie.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was prima facie entitled to abatement while working out the pre-deposit.

Analysis: For the balance demand within Delhi jurisdiction, the Tribunal accepted prima facie that the assessee was entitled to 67% abatement and directed pre-deposit only of the service tax attributable to the remaining 33% of the relevant value. Amounts already paid were directed to be adjusted, and recovery of the remaining liability was stayed on compliance.

Conclusion: The assessee was held prima facie entitled to 67% abatement for the purpose of pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was entertained on a reduced pre-deposit basis, with partial relief granted on the jurisdictional issue and interim protection against recovery upon compliance.

---