Appeal allowed without pre-deposit. Revenue's service tax claim dismissed. Commissioner's order set aside.

The appeal was taken up for a final decision without the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant successfully argued against the Revenue's claim of collecting service tax, presenting evidence showing no correlation between service tax and flat cost. The original authority's decision was upheld, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order due to lack of detailed analysis. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief and dismissing the Revenue's allegations of service tax collection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit requirement for appeal
2. Collection of service tax by the appellant
3. Analysis of evidence and documents
4. Discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals) order
5. Decision on the appeal and consequential relief

Waiver of Pre-Deposit Requirement:
The judgment states that although only a stay application was listed, the appeal itself can be decided finally after hearing both sides. Consequently, the pre-deposit requirement is waived, and the appeal is taken up for a final decision.

Collection of Service Tax:
The Revenue contended that the appellant had collected service tax from flat purchasers, amounting to over &8377;5.8 lakhs, beyond the normal period. The investigation was initiated based on a complaint from a flat purchaser alleging the collection of service tax. However, the appellant argued, supported by evidence, that they did not show service tax as a cost element in their receipts or bills. The original authority concluded that there was no correlation between the service tax amount and flat cost, no specific percentage was charged as service tax, and the appellants had not collected service tax. The appellants had also obtained indemnity letters from flat purchasers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand solely based on the presence of service tax in price lists, lacking detailed discussion unlike the original authority.

Analysis of Evidence and Documents:
The judgment scrutinized the basis for the original authority's conclusion and relevant documents. It found the impugned order unsustainable, supporting the original authority's correct conclusion. The original authority's decision was deemed appropriate in the circumstances, leading to setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief for the appellant.

Discrepancies in Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The judgment highlighted the lack of detailed discussion in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which merely noted the presence of service tax in price lists without a thorough analysis. This discrepancy, compared to the original authority's detailed examination of evidence, contributed to the unsustainability of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Decision on the Appeal and Consequential Relief:
Ultimately, the judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. Any consequential relief was granted accordingly, aligning with the original authority's findings and dismissing the Revenue's contentions regarding the collection of service tax by the appellant.

---