2009 (2) TMI 379 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax- the issue arose in respect of cancelled tickets by the travel agent. The appellant was to get back the refund of Service Tax on the cancelled tickets. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not able to examine the claim without evidence being adduced by the appellant before him. Therefore the demand of Rs. 55, 529 was confirmed. Held that- Representative engaged has not paid proper stamp duty on the authorisation. He is directed to deposit the same in the course of day before Registry. The order passed aforesaid shall only be operative upon deposit of court fee before the Registry otherwise appeal shall stand dismissed and so also the stay application.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of Service Tax on cancelled tickets.
2. Requirement of pre-deposit before appeal hearing.
3. Proper payment of stamp duty on authorization.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, represented by its CA, sought a refund of Service Tax on cancelled tickets by a travel agent. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed a demand of Rs. 55,529 due to lack of evidence adduced by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not been able to present evidence, and directed them to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 30,000 within six weeks. The appellant was instructed to report compliance before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings based on the evidence on record or presented during the hearing.

2. The Tribunal considered the issue of pre-deposit raised by the ld. DR, who argued that there was no indication in the record that pre-deposit was insisted upon by the ld. First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was decided based on the materials on record. It was noted that the appellant had suffered due to the prevention of adducing evidence, and the Tribunal directed the appellant to make the specified pre-deposit to proceed with the appeal.

3. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of proper payment of stamp duty on the authorization. It was observed that the ld. Representative engaged had not paid the proper stamp duty on the authorization. The Tribunal directed the representative to deposit the required amount as court fee before the Registry for the order to be operative. Failure to comply with the payment would result in the dismissal of the appeal and the stay application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both the stay applications and appeals with the specified directions regarding the pre-deposit, presentation of evidence, and payment of stamp duty. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements and providing necessary evidence for a fair hearing and decision on the matter.