Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
T.K. JAYARAMAN , Judicial Member , DR. S.L. PEERAN , Technical Member
Maini Industrial Consultants -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise -Respondent
stay order no. 795 of 2005 st/st 27/2005 in st/37/2005 Appeal No. ST/37 of 2005
Decided On : 13-10-2005
Dr. S.L. Peeran, Judicial Member. - The appellants are praying for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 4,86,797 and penalties of Rs. 500 under section 75A, Rs. 100 per day under section 76, Rs. 1,000 under section 77 and Rs. 25,000 under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants were carrying on the business of industrial consultant. They were directed to pay service tax under the category of ‘Management Consultants’. Drawing attention to the definition of ‘Management Consultants’, the appellants submitted that they do not come within the ambit of Management Consultant. Their claim is that their function is of Business Auxiliary Services. They have paid Rs. 1,12,090 under the category of ‘Scientific and Technical Consultancy’ with interest on 31-1-2003. The authorities have not noticed this fact and have not considered their pleas including 5 judgments cited by them on this point.
2. The learned Counsel also submits that by final order No. 1579 dated 2-9-2005, the matter has been remanded back to the Commissioner to consider as to whether the activity falls within the ambit of ‘Management Consultants’. He submits that appellant has a strong prima facie case in light of the submissions made including the judgments cited in the matter and prays for total waiver in the matter.
3. The SDR refers to the findings given by both the authorities and submits that the appellants have been treated as a ‘Management Consultant’ and therefore the confirmation of demand is justified.
4. On a careful consideration, it is seen that the appellants claimed themselves to be ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ and they had already paid service tax under the category of ‘Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services’. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities including several judgments cited by them. The appellants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour. Therefore, the stay application is allowed by granting full waiver and staying the recovery as the issue is prima facie covered by the cited judgment. The appeal has to be heard out of turn. The matter to come up for final hearing on 18-11-2005.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
