Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, VICE-PRESIDENT
Mail Related Services -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai -Respondent
STAY ORDER NO. 362/2010 APPLICATION NO. ST/S/114/2010 APPEAL NO. ST/199/2010
Decided On : 02-08-2010
V.S. Manoj,C. Rangaraju
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T). - Heard both sides. We find that the appellants are engaged in providing mailing list compilation and mailing services. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate that for the service charges received from their clients, the appellants are paying service tax. The dispute in this case relates to the demand of tax on franking charges which, the Ld. Advocate states, are being paid directly by the clients to the postal authorities in the form of bank drafts etc., and part of the demand is also on the commission received from the postal authorities by the appellants.
2. After considering the arguments from both sides as well as perusal of case records, we are prima facie of the view that the franking charges being in the nature of postal charges in lieu of postage stamps for which direct payments are being made by the appellant’s clients to the post office, cannot form part of the taxable value in the hands of the appellants. Similarly, the rebate of franking charges received by the appellants from the post office cannot be also prima facie considered as a charge received from the clients for the services rendered to the clients. As such, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for full waiver of the pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal. The requirement of pre-deposit is, therefore waived during the pendency of the appeal.
