On a careful consideration of the submissions, we find that the issue involved in this case is the very same which was remanded by this Bench vide Final Order No 612/2009 dated 6.5.2009 . We find that vide Stay Order No 1093/2006 dated 06.10.2006 , this Bench had directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs 14,00,000/- which was duly complied with. Since this amount is still lying with the department, we consider this amount as enough deposit to hear and dispose off the appeal. Application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the balance amount is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
The assessee filed appeal to the Tribunal on denial of credit by lower authority on factory garden maintenance, plant housekeeping services. As regards insurance and tours and travels credit, it was denied on the grounds of non-availability of records.
The impugned order confirms the demand against the appellant under the category Business Auxiliary Services without specifying which specific sub-clause covered the activities rendered by UTL. We find that no tax liability can be confirmed against a person without putting him/it on notice as to its liability. It is essential that the liability is indicated in the notice with reference to the specific statutory provision. In the instant case, the impugned proceedings did not allege at the show cause notice stage or find at the adjudication stage the specific provision under which the services rendered by UTL are classifiable.
As per statutory provision under section 65(105) (zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994 taxable service means any service provided or to be provided – (zzn) to any person, by air craft operator, in relation to transport of goods by aircraft. The definition of the term aircraft appears in Section 65(3A) of the said Act Passenger aircraft is not excluded. The meaning of the goods is assigned from the term sale used in Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, 77 or 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” In other words, the assessee has to establish reasonable cause for the failure which could otherwise attract penalty under the said provisions of law. The letter dated 24th August, 2006 merely informs the Department that the appellants were not aware of the statutory provisions.
Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. („the assessee?) is registered with Central Excise Department for the manufacture of pre-fabricated steel buildings, falling under Chapter 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee also avails of the CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 („CENVAT Rules?). From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, the assessee cleared its finished goods, namely, pre-fabricated building without payment of Central Excise duty to a unit located in Special Economic Zone („SEZ?) under a letter of undertaking. These goods so cleared to SEZ without payment of duty were regarded as exports and accordingly, the assessee filed six refund claims in respect of the unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules. The refund claims filed by the assessee were rejected by the Original Adjudicating authority and on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Adjudicating authority was set aside by concluding that the supplies to SEZ units amount to exports for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules. The Department has filed the present appeal against the said order to the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT?).
Assessee has not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit and keeping in view the total facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the assessee to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance amount of Service Tax and penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.
The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles, entered into dealership agreements with their dealers. The agreement provided for servicing and warranty including free service. The dealers margin covered pre-delivery inspection and three after sales services. The issue, therefore, was whether such pre-delivery inspection and after- sale-service charges are to be included in the assessable value of the goods for determining the duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Act?).
There is no direct decision in favour of the Revenue for levy of service tax on the service component of a works contract prior to 01/06/2007. On the other hand, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Indian National Shipowners ‘Association case is directly against the Revenue and the same is binding on this Bench of the Tribunal.
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.
