2010 (6) TMI 272 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Service Tax Liability Determination Appeal Granted with Waiver and Recovery Stayed

T. Harshavardhana Prasad Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionerate

The Tribunal found that the appellant's services did not clearly align with the 'Cargo Handling Service' and 'Maintenance or Repair Service' categories ... Classification of Services - The demand of the Service Tax and consequent penalties and interest has arisen on the ground that the appellant/applicant has provided services under 'Cargo Handling service' and 'Maintenance or Repairs Service'. However adjudicating authority had not specifically come to conclusion as to amount of service tax payable by assessee towards services provided by it under above alleged service. Held that - contract entered into by assessee indicated only supply of manpower. Thus assessee had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre deposit. Issues:1. Whether the appellant's services fall under 'Cargo Handling Service' and 'Maintenance or Repair Service' categories for Service Tax liability determination.2. Whether the stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of specified amounts is justified.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant's services are alleged to fall under 'Cargo Handling Service' and 'Maintenance or Repair Service' categories for Service Tax liability. The appellant argues that they are registered under 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services' and that the demand pertains to a prior period where the revenue seeks to classify their services differently. The appellant contends that the adjudicating authority failed to specify the amounts payable under each category, relying on precedents to support their position. On the other hand, the respondent asserts that the services provided by the appellant align with 'Cargo Handling Services' and 'Maintenance or Repair Services' definitions under the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent cites relevant legal provisions and a previous decision to support their argument. The Tribunal notes the lack of specific categorization by the adjudicating authority and acknowledges the appellant's prima facie case for a waiver of pre-deposit due to the absence of clear quantification of the tax liabilities under different service categories.Issue 2:The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, finds that the lack of specific determination of the tax amounts payable by the appellant under different service categories hinders a conclusive decision. Citing a relevant precedent and the content of the appellant's contract indicating manpower supply only, the Tribunal concludes that the appellant has established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal allows the application for the waiver of the specified amounts and stays the recovery until the appeal's final disposal.