ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellant is required to pre-deposit Rs. 27,69,549/- for the purpose of hearing this appeal. The Assistant Commissioner has dropped these demands on the basis of CA’s Certificate produced by the appellant to show that the category of house keeping was not within the ambit of service tax. However, on review, the Commissioner has held that the Certificate relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner is a bald certificate, which is not substantiated by any documentary evidence/particulars. Reasons were furnished to the assessee as to why the certificate is not acceptable and they have not rebutted it. Their contention is that certificate is complete in all aspects and that certificate of the CA cannot be challenged. The Commissioner has noted in his Order-in-Original that the certificate does not quantify the total amount attributable to house keeping services provided during the said period. It does not mention the total amount received by the assessee during the year 1999-2004 nor separate breakup furnished year wise for abatement if any, in Service Tax liability. He also stated that even in respect of 5 numbers of customers mentioned in the certificate who reportedly had received house-keeping services provided by the assessee, no amount has been indicated. The Commissioner has noted that the certificate relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner is a bald certificate which is not substantiated by any other documentary evidence.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argued at length to say that these grounds were never mentioned to them. The C.A’s certificate cannot be challenged. They have raised several other grounds. All these grounds have been rebutted by learned SDR who pointed out that even before the Tribunal, in the paper book they have not produced any piece of evidence to substantiate their claim for non-levy of service tax on the alleged services of house-keeping rendered by them.
3. Prima facie we agree with learned SDR that appellants have not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate their plea that they had carried out house-keeping services. The certificate of CA has also not been produced for scrutiny. We have to proceed on the basis of the observation of the Commissioner noted (supra). The C.A’s certificate ought to have given break up of house-keeping services furnished year-wise. In view of the nature of the Certificate being unreliable, it cannot said at this stage that the assessee has discharged their burden to seek benefit of non-levy of service tax on the category of house-keeping services. However taking into consideration, the plea of financial hardship, we direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three months from the date of this Order. Call on to report compliance on 11th April 08. On such deposit, the balance of duty and penalty is waived. Non-deposit of the amount will entail dismissal of the appeal.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)
