9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady been deposited and therefore, deposit of balance amount be waived. He submitted that the tribunal has erred in asking the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 6 lacs, apart from Its. 6 lacs which has already been deposited. Held that: - The Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that the interpretation of the notification is doubtful and the appellant may or may not get the relief - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax under the Service Tax Act. 3. The contention of appellant is that the appellant is not a tour operator and therefore, not liable for service tax. 4. The contention of the appellant has not been accepted by the adjudicating authority and a sum of Rs. 28,64,516.86 has been demanded for the period April, 2002 to August, 2004. Against the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount. The Tribunal by the impugned order al lowed the application in part and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lacs. 5. Heard Sri H.P. Dube, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.F. Kesarwani, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief. 9. In view of the aforesaid observation and the claim of the appellant that it not liable for any service tax, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal requires modification. 10. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs within a period of one month from today. In case, if the appellant deposits the aforesaid amount the tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
