2013 (8) TMI 914 - HC - Service Tax

If the goods were exported and had the assessee deposited the amount it would have been refunded under the 2007-Notification; In view of the same prima facie it cannot be said there was intention to evade tax and the assessee has a strong case on merit.

Summary

Issues:
Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited, an assessee exporting iron ore fines to China. The assessee used Goods Transport Agencies (GTAs) for export, leading to a dispute regarding the deposit of Service Tax for the period 25-9-2006 to 31-3-2009. The Central Government had exempted Service Tax on GTA services for exported goods through notifications in 2007 and 2009. The Department issued a notice for non-payment of Service Tax, which the assessee contested, claiming the intention was not to evade tax as it was to be refunded. The Adjudicating Officer upheld the notice, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal partially allowed exemption from pre-deposit, requiring the assessee to pay the principal Service Tax with interest, excluding the penalty. The High Court, after hearing both parties, referred to relevant legal precedents emphasizing undue hardship and strong prima facie cases for exemption from pre-deposit. The Court highlighted that the assessee had a strong case on merit, as there was no evidence of fraud or intent to evade tax. Therefore, the Tribunal should have waived the pre-deposit requirement, provided the assessee deposited a bank guarantee for the principal amount with accrued interest. The Court allowed the tax appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal should decide the appeal on merits without bias.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the exemption from pre-deposit in a Tax Appeal under the Central Excise Act, highlighting the importance of strong prima facie cases and undue hardship considerations. The Court emphasized that in cases where there is no intent to evade tax and a strong case on merit, pre-deposit requirements should be waived, ensuring a fair hearing and decision on the appeal.