Tribunal grants stay, waives pre-deposit, and halts recovery process pending further proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the stay application, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the recovery process pending further proceedings, as the High Court's judgment supported the appellant's position regarding the levy of service tax on IT services rendered abroad with payments made through foreign exchange. Despite the reference to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions, the Tribunal found the appellant had a strong case on merits based on relevant case law, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether service tax is leviable on IT services rendered abroad with payments made through foreign exchangeRs.
2. Whether conflicting decisions regarding service tax liability should be considered in directing the appellant to pre-deposit the amountRs.

Issue 1:
The appellant was required to pre-deposit a specific amount towards service tax and penalty for importing IT services rendered abroad with payments made through foreign exchange. The appellant argued that service tax should not be levied as the services were performed outside India and payments were received in foreign exchange. The appellant's counsel cited various judgments, including the case of Aditya Cements v. CCE, Jaipur, affirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad, and Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. v. CC & CE, to support the contention that service tax is not applicable in such scenarios.

Issue 2:
The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the issue had been referred to a Larger Bench in the case of Molex (India) Ltd v. CCE (A), Bangalore, highlighting a conflict of decisions. The DR argued that decisions favoring the Revenue should be considered, and the appellant should be directed to pre-deposit the amount in question. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the ruling in the case of Aditya Cement, confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court, favored the appellant. Despite the reference to the Larger Bench, the High Court's judgment supported the appellant's position, indicating a strong case on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the recovery process pending further proceedings scheduled for a later date.

---

---