Appellant Must Pre-Deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs within 12 Weeks or Risk Appeal Dismissal

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within 12 weeks to comply with statutory provisions. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The remaining liability was stayed pending the appeal's outcome, subject to the pre-deposit being made, with compliance reporting set for a specific date. The Tribunal found a reasonable ground for the appellant regarding the time bar, potentially affecting a substantial part of the demand, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand under Architect Service and Management or Business Consultants Services.
2. Allegation of suppression and time bar regarding the demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay application and appeal against the Order-in-Original confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 65,75,890 under Architect Service and Management or Business Consultants Services. The appellant argued that the services provided were related to construction or supervising building construction for Government institutions, not covered under the specified services. The appellant also highlighted a letter from 2007 where the nature of the services provided was clarified to the Department, indicating no suppression. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the services fell under Architect/Management or Business Consultants services as per the contract terms with Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. The Revenue supported the order, alleging suppression by the appellant, regardless of when the Department became aware of the evasion.

2. The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that while the 2007 letter mentioned construction/supervision charges, the contract terms did not specify building construction by the appellant. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's point on the invocation of the extended period for willful misstatement/suppression, irrespective of the Department's awareness date. However, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue was aware of the services provided by November 2007, if not earlier, potentially limiting the scope for suppression or willful misstatement post that date. Consequently, the Tribunal found a reasonable ground for the appellant regarding the time bar, potentially affecting a substantial part of the demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within 12 weeks to comply with statutory provisions. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The remaining liability was stayed pending the appeal's outcome, provided the pre-deposit was made. Compliance reporting was set for a specific date, ensuring adherence to the order.

---