Security and Escorts Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Security and Escorts Services vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 06, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41710

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/41710
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T Chittaranjan
Decided On: Feb 06, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Security and Escorts Services

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Excerpt

1. the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of rs. 16,31/625/- confirmed against the applicants herein on the ground that they were providing security services and, therefore, liable to service tax under this heading and penalties of rs. 500/- under section 75a, rs. 100/- under section 76, rs. 1,000/- under section 77 and amount equal to service tax under section 78 of the finance act, 1994, arises out of the order of the commissioner of central excise appeals, mumbai, who has dismissed the appeal of the assessees on the ground that they did not comply with his direction for pre-deposit of rs. 14,81,625/- as contained in stay order dated 31-1-2005.3. we find that no prirna facie case for total waiver has been made out, as the stay order records that three opportunities for personal hearing were extended to the assessees but they did not avail of any one of them, they did not apply for modification of the order dated 31-1-2005 and then did not comply with the pre-deposit requirement. in these circumstances, we direct pre-deposit of rs. 8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs only) towards service tax within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance service tax and the penalties 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.

Full Judgment

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 16,31/625/- confirmed against the applicants herein on the ground that they were providing security services and, therefore, liable to service tax under this heading and penalties of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, Rs. 100/- under Section 76, Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 and amount equal to service tax under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, Mumbai, who has dismissed the appeal of the assessees on the ground that they did not comply with his direction for pre-deposit of Rs. 14,81,625/- as contained in stay order dated 31-1-2005.

3. We find that no prirna facie case for total waiver has been made out, as the stay order records that three opportunities for personal hearing were extended to the assessees but they did not avail of any one of them, they did not apply for modification of the order dated 31-1-2005 and then did not comply with the pre-deposit requirement. In these circumstances, we direct pre-deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) towards service tax within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance service tax and the penalties 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.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Security and Escorts Services vs Commr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T Chittaranjan