9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') on 01.08.2011 (Annexure P-5) on an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty, penalty and intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2010, raised a demand of Rs.54,16,682/-; equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 and also imposed penalties under Section 76 and interest under Section 75 of the Act, apart from interest. In an appeal by the petitioner before the Tribunal, a request for adjournment was made by the counsel for the petitioner on medical ground, but the same was rejected, as the medical certificate h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is being deposited by the main Contractor. A copy of various challans for the period in dispute showing the service tax paid by some of the main contractors for the whole work which includes the part of the service rendered by the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure P-6 (colly)." In reply to the said paragraph, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y service tax on the services rendered by the petitioner to the main contractor. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that there is no specific denial of the Revenue to the assertion in respect of payment of the service tax by the main contractors in view of the proof of deposit furnished as Annexure P-6. Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, learned counsel for the Revenue, could not disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, when sought by the counsel on the medical ground. Even on merits, we find that the petitioner has produced the challans in respect of deposit of service tax by the main contractors. In view of the said fact, the direction of the Tribunal to deposit 50% of the amount of the demand raised, is unjustified and untenable. Consequently, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 01.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
