2015 (10) TMI 575 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Orders Appellant to Make Rs. 40 Lakh Pre-Deposit or Risk Appeal Dismissal

Farhat Construction Versus CCE & ST, Raipur

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs within eight weeks to meet the requirements of the Central Excise Act and the ... Waiver of pre-deposit - Appellant provides services of maintenance or repair service and manpower recruitment service and contends that service recipient paid service tax on behalf of the Appellant for the period in issue and it had no intention to evade the tax as such – Held That:- no evidence has been furnished that M/s HSCL paid service tax on behalf of/on account of the appellant. - the issue of invocability of extended period requires detailed analysis which can be taken up only at the time of final hearing but it is a factor to be taken into account at this interlocutory stage. - stay granted partly. Issues:1. Service tax demand confirmation for services provided.2. Contention regarding payment of service tax by the service recipient.3. Issue of time-bar and pre-deposit requirement.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with a stay application and appeal filed against a service tax demand confirmation for services provided by the appellant to M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. The appellant was registered under maintenance or repair service and manpower recruitment service categories but did not pay service tax for the period 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the service recipient had paid the service tax on behalf of the appellant for the period prior to 2009-2010 when the appellant was not even registered.2. The appellant contended that it had started paying service tax from 2009-2010 and had remitted a significant amount. However, the service recipient stated that it was not possible for them to provide clear evidence of payment of service tax on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the leviability of service tax on the services provided was not in dispute, and the issue of invocability of the extended period needed detailed analysis, which could be addressed at the final hearing. Considering the appellant had already paid a substantial amount, the Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs within eight weeks to meet the requirements of the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act.3. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with the pre-deposit was essential, and failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The order allowed for the stay of recovery of the remaining adjudicated liability during the appeal's pendency, subject to the pre-deposit compliance. The judgment also mentioned the allowance of a miscellaneous application for stay of the impugned order dated 30.1.2014, following the disposal of the stay application. Compliance reporting was set for 1.12.2015, highlighting the importance of meeting the pre-deposit requirement to avoid dismissal of the appeal.