Following the earlier order to reduce the litigation at the grass root level first appellate order is set aside and we send the matter back to ld. Appellate Authority to re-examine the issue without insisting on pre-deposits by him. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed remanding the appeals to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same in accordance with law.
Revenue agrees to grant an opportunity to the appellant to reduce the dispute at the grass root level. In view of the limited opportunity of rebuttals as above pleaded the matter is remanded to the learned Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the issue of input credit admissibility as stated above including the documents referred to in Para 5.2 of the first appellate order granting fair opportunity of defence to the appellant.
In this case appellant was allowed to operate the ropeway of Nagar Palika and such factual aspect called for testing by the Revenue Authorities with the provision of law under which the appellant was brought to tax. Section 65(105)(n) of the Act has taxing entry and meaning of the term Tour Operator is given by section 65(115) of the Act. Definition of Tour Operator” under section 65(115) states that any person engaged in the business, planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours by any mode of transport shall be Tour Operator.
Facts and circumstances of the case suggests that the appellant has adopted a novel way of splitting the consideration with nomenclature of reimbursement of expenses. Deliberate splitting is not possible to be ruled out when splitting is not intended by law. Once splitting is attributable to a motive, the appellant cannot get any shelter under the purview of law.
In the entire scenario, we note that admittedly, a wrong order got issued (as the mistake happened in the hands of Steno) without noticing the facts of the present case, the replacement of said order cannot be considered to be a review of the same. The entire order, which got issued was a mistake inasmuch as the same does not relate to the facts of the present case except that the reference of Appeal No. and impugned order-in-appeal match in the preamble to those in case under consideration making it look as if the present order relates to the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication.
Vide stay order No.ST/S/177/12-Cus dated 8.2.2012 the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 30 lakh. Subsequently, the matter came up for ascertaining compliance and as the appellant expressed his desire to file modification application, the matter was adjourned and listed on 20.7.2012.
In the case of activities sought to be classified under site formation service our prima facie view is that this activity is classifiable as mining activity and liable to service tax only from 1-6-2007 and such tax is being paid. Demand of service tax under site formation service does not appear to be prima facie maintainable in this case where during the relevant period the definition did not cover the activity specifically and later a specific entry is introduced to cover the activity. So at this prima facie stage, we find that the appellants have made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal. We order so and there shall be waiver on collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal.
It is the contention of the applicant that they have paid the amount in excess in the month of April 2004 and May 2004. We are therefore of the view the fact regarding excess payment is required to be verified by the Commissioner (Appeal). Accordingly we waive the pre-deposit and remand the case back to Commissioner for decision on merit after ascertaining the excess deposit of Rs. 14,451/- as service tax as contended by the applicant. Stay petition as well as Appeal are disposed of by way of remand.
Notice of dismissal was issued on 29-2-2012 to show cause as to the reason why appeal of the appellant should not be dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.
The order impugned before the Commissioner was received by the appellant on 04.09.2010 and the appeal was filed on 11.08.2011. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that there is no provision under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone the delay beyond the period of three months on expiry of the limitation period.
