9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odify our Stay Order No. 1746/09 dated 11-12-2009 ordering pre-deposit of rupees six crores to hear the captioned appeal vide the order impugned Rs. 28,25,56,180 was demanded from M/s L&T Ltd. towards service tax not paid by them under "Commercial or Industrial Construction" service rendered by them during 9/06 to 4/08 in constructing a gas terminal (on shore terminal or OT) for Reliance Industrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shore terminal was construced by IVRCL Ltd. Reliance is placed on following case laws in support of the claim that in such circumstances, Tribunal is bound to order waiver of predeposit. 1. K.G. Gluco Biols Ltd. v. CCE 1996(87) ELT 463 (Trib. - Mad.) 2. Gaurang Mehta v. Commissioner of Customs [1999] (111) ELT 422 (Trib. - Mum.) 3. Sanjivani (Takli) SSK Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent from the activity considered in the order impugned in the appeal before us. We find that no binding judicial authority was brought to our notice which we had ignored in passing the impugned order. There is also no new claim Of financial hardship in the application. In any case, modifying the Stay Order would amount to reviewing our own order which is not permissible. This was the ratio of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal ordered waiver as the applicant alone was meted out an adverse treatment compared to all other assessees while implementing provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC. Applicant was asked to reverse the entire credit availed on inputs while all other assessees were required to deposit only 8 per cent of the value of the exempted final product (denatured spirit) cleared.In the Bharat-Petroleum Corpn. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
