9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it 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, no merit in the modification application hence rejected - ST/351/2009 - 68/2010 - Dated:- 22-2-2010 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, P. KARTHIKEYAN, JJ. ORDER P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member. - This miscellaneous application filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tallation or Commissioning service. As in the case of Commercial or Industrial Construction service, Erection, Installation or Commissioning service also did not cover services provided in relation to construction of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams. In the IVRCL Infrastructure Projects v. CCE [2009] 22 STT 228 (Bang. - CESTAT) an embankment for appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther OT is transport terminal excluded from Commercial or Industrial Construction service. After considering the issue on merits at some length, we took a prima-facie view triat the impugned activity was not exempt and OT was not transport terminal . We find that the order-in-appeal cited to show that the Commissioner (Appeals) held a different view on the matter dealt with an activity differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal had decided the dispute in favour of the of assessee and CBEC had issued order under section 37B of the Central Excise Act. In the case of Gaurang Mehta (supra) order of predeposit was modified by reducing predeposit to half of Rs. 20 lakhs initially ordered as the revenue had accepted exonerating similarly placed persons as the applicant. In Sanjivani (Takli) SSK Ltd. (supra). Tribunal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1746/09 dated 11-12-2009 waived lion s share of the liabilities confirmed against the applicant as it had not made a strong prima facie case against the dues adjudged against it. The case laws cited do not support the assessee s case for modification waiving predeposit when the Tribunal has taken a prima facie view on the merits of the demand against the assessee. 4. In the circumstances, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
