TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants for service tax benefits, waives pre-deposit and stay of recovery</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding a prima facie case for admissibility of benefits under Notifications No. 13/03-ST and No. 12/03-ST. ... Sales of air-conditioner on behalf of their principal (M/s. Carrier Aircon) on commission basis and also the maintenance, repairs, installation and commissioning of the air-conditioners – Prima facie appellant deserves benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/03-ST. and 13/03 – moreover, appellant should also be given the benefit of payment of tax by principal on maintenance and repair service – hence in view of above stay is granted Issues:1. Differential service tax and education cess demand invoking larger period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Dispute regarding taxable services: Business Auxiliary Service, Maintenance and Repair Service, and Commissioning and Installation Service.4. Denial of benefit of Notifications No. 13/03-ST and No. 12/03-ST leading to differential service tax demands.5. Prima facie case for the appellants regarding admissibility of benefits under the mentioned Notifications.Analysis:1. The Commissioner demanded differential service tax and education cess amounting to Rs. 56,35,273 from the appellants for the period July, 2003 to March, 2007, covering three categories of taxable services. The appellants were registered with the department for all three categories, involving sales, maintenance, and installation of air-conditioners on commission basis for their principal. The demand was made under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, with penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the same Act.2. The appellants contested the demand, citing denial of benefits under Notifications No. 13/03-ST and No. 12/03-ST. They argued that the denial of these benefits led to the differential service tax demands. The appellants claimed that the benefits under these notifications were wrongly denied, and the learned Counsel supported this claim. The SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner.3. Upon examination, the Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the appellants. It was observed that the benefits under Notifications No. 13/03-ST and No. 12/03-ST were indeed admissible to the assessee. Additionally, it was noted that service tax in the second category (Maintenance and Repairs Service) was already paid by the principal, M/s. Carrier Aircon, but this fact was not considered by the Commissioner. As a result, the Tribunal ordered a waiver of pre-deposit and a stay of recovery for the amounts of service tax and penalties, acknowledging the prima facie case for the appellants.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the contentions of the parties, and the Tribunal's findings, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal aspects discussed in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
