2012 (9) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isposal together. 2. The appellant M/s. Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd. is registered with the department under the category of 'Management, Maintenance & Repairs Service' as a recipient/importer of services from the service provider located outside India. They have received the said service during the period April, 2008 to September, 2009. The appellant is in the business of providing Air Charter to their customers and for the purpose of providing maintenance, checks and overhaul including materials and spare parts required for the aircraft engine, they have entered into a 60 months agreement with M/s. Jet Support Services Inc., USA. The service charges are paid by the appellants on monthly installments on the basis of actual hours flown in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith respect to that portion of the order wherein the appellant has been directed to pay differential service tax on provisional basis. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the Rule 6(4) of the Service Tax Rules, where an assessee is, for any reason, unable to correctly estimate, on the date of deposit, the actual amount payable for any particular month or quarter, as the case may be, he may make a request in writing to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise giving reasons for payment of service tax on provisional basis and on receipt of such request, the said Assistant/Deputy Commissioner may allow the payment of service tax on provisional basis on such value of taxable service as may be specified ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant of stay, we take up the appeal for consideration and disposal. 5.1 The issue before the appellate authority was whether the appellant should have been allowed provisional assessment or not and the appellate authority has clearly held that, in the instant case, the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner should have allowed the provisional assessment under Rule 6(4) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The issue relating to on what value the provisional assessment/payment should be made was not before the appellate authority and, therefore, the appellate authority should not have, without putting the appellant to notice, pass an order directing the appellant to discharge the service tax liability on the entire amount indicated in t....