V. RAVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications accompanying the captioned appeals seek waiver of predeposit of service tax under the category of 'Rent a Cab Operator Scheme' demanded from, and penalties imposed under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), on each of the appellants for contravening the provisions of the Act. The common facts of these cases are that during the material period, the appellants provided vehicles for transporting the staff of BSNL between various points and the BSNL office under an agreement entered into by each with BSNL. The original authority issued notices invoking larger period to demand the service tax not paid and to impose penalties on the appellants. The original authority confirmed the demands of service tax as proposed and imposed penalties under Sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. The interest applicable was also demanded from the appellants. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) upheld the orders of the original authority.

(2.) MOVING the applications for waiver and stay, the ld. Counsel submit that the service rendered by the appellants did not conform to the definition of 'Rent a Cab Operator Scheme'. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notices and the orders in original did not substantiate the allegation that the service tax involved in each case had not been paid owing to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of fact or contravention of any legal provisions with intent to evade payment of service tax. All the appellants had deposed before the authorities that their failure to pay tax had been occasioned by their ignorance of the requirement to pay the tax. They were also not given correct invoice by M/s. BSNL as to their liability to service tax for the service provided.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions by the Counsel for the appellants and the ld. JCDR, I find that though the notices had alleged wilful misstatements/suppression of facts etc., in support of invoking larger period, the orders passed in adjudication, prima facie, do not contain requisite finding which would substantiate the charge of evasion of service tax of the by the appellants by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatements or suppression of facts with an intention to evade the tax. In the circumstances, I find that the appellants have made a prima facie case against the impugned demand and penalties. Accordingly, I order that there shall be waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of the dues as per the orders impugned in the appeals till their final disposal.