Case Law Details
On a careful consideration of the case records and the submission made by both sides, we find that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the dues adjudged against them. The impugned order sustained demand of service tax of Rs 7,67,673/, applicable interest, penalty @ 200/- per day or @ 2% of the tax confirmed per month for the period the tax was in arrears, penalty of Rs 5000/- under Section 77 of the Act and penalty of Rs 12,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Act. We find that a pre-deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) will be appropriate to hear and dispose the appeal. Hence we direct the appellants to pre-deposit Rs 1,00,000/- within four weeks from to day and report compliance on 20 th September 2010. Subject to such compliance, we order waiver of balance dues pending decision in the appeal.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
Service Tax Stay Application No. 572/2009
Appeal No. 926/2009
M/s NEODAM RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
Vs
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD
Date of Decision: 16.08.2010
Appellant Rep by: Mr S Jai Kumar, Adv.
Respondent Rep by: Mr M M Ravi Rajendran, JDR
CORAM: P Karthikeyan, Member, (T)
D N Panda, Member (J)
STAY ORDER NO. 765/2010
Per: P Karthikeyan:
The appellants are engaged in re-rubberising of rollers/spindles meant for use in printing. The impugned order found that the appellants were engaged in rendering ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ during the period 16.6.2005 to 30.09.2007. It confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 7,67,673/- along with applicable interest and imposed penalties under Section 76,77 & 78 of the Finance Act 1994 (the Act) on the appellants. Moving the application for stay, learned counsel for the applicant argues that authorities had demanded service tax on the same value on which the appellants had paid VAT under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act. Citing case laws, he contends that service tax cannot be demanded on the same value which had suffered VAT. He submits that the impugned activity constituted business auxiliary service. However, there was no break-up of the liability of the appellants under this head. He seeks complete waiver of the dues adjudged against the appellants.
2. Learned JDR submits that during the material period, the impugned activity was correctly classifiable under ‘management, maintenance or repair service’. Appellant had failed to give value relatable to the activity of repair. He submits that the impugned order deserves to be sustained.
3. On a careful consideration of the case records and the submission made by both sides, we find that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the dues adjudged against them. The impugned order sustained demand of service tax of Rs 7,67,673/, applicable interest, penalty @ 200/- per day or @ 2% of the tax confirmed per month for the period the tax was in arrears, penalty of Rs 5000/- under Section 77 of the Act and penalty of Rs 12,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Act. We find that a pre-deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) will be appropriate to hear and dispose the appeal. Hence we direct the appellants to pre-deposit Rs 1,00,000/- within four weeks from to day and report compliance on 20 th September 2010. Subject to such compliance, we order waiver of balance dues pending decision in the appeal.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
