9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, 2004 is concerned, we do not find any prima facie case having been made out except that the appellant would be entitled for credit to the tune of Rs. 2,21,015 - the application is partly allowed and the appellants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,18,018 + Rs. 11,611/- deducting therefrom Rs. 2,21,015 - ST/634/2010 - 853/2010 - Dated:- 22-10-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore by Order dated 8th January, 2010. Though the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds, for the purpose of grant of stay, the appellants have drawn our attention specifically to the fact that the statement of the Proprietor of the appellant was recorded on 11th August, 2004, wherein it was made abundantly clear to the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said charges in the value of the taxable services, have already paid a sum of Rs. 2,21,015/-. In these circumstances, according to the learned Advocate, there was no justification for invoking extended period of limitation. 4. On the other hand, the Joint CDR submitted that the fact that the loading and unloading charges were not included in the value of taxable service was not known to the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loading charges in the value of the taxable service and for the year 2006, they had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,21,015/-. The impugned orders do not disclose this amount having been taken into consideration while deciding the total tax liability. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, in our considered opinion, prima facie case for the partial stay of the impugned order has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
