9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of maintainability - No case for modification of the stay order has been made out by the appellant - directed to make pre-deposit - ST/578/2009 - 572/2011 & 1/2012 - Dated:- 8-12-2011 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Mohan Shqfiq and S.M.V. Raman, Advocates, for the Appellant. Ms. Indira Sisupal, DR, and Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This application filed by the appellant seeks modification of Stay Order No. 481/11, dated 26-5-2011 [2011 (24) S.T.R. 728 (Tri.) passed by this Bench directing pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs. It appears from the records that the stay order was challenged before the Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice rendered to the land owner. After noting that, as against the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,12,45,661/-, the dispute was only against the taxable value determined by the adjudicating authority, this Bench proceeded to consider the dispute which involved abatement to the extent of 67% from the gross value for the purpose of payment of service tax. After a fairly detailed discussion on this aspect with reference to the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, as also to the relevant factual aspects, the Bench, in the said stay order took the prima facie view that no case was made out by the appellant against the above demand of tax. The Bench also considered their plea of limitation and took the view that they did not have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he modification application. In this connection, support is claimed from Indotex Machinery Works v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 265 (Mad.). 4. Learned SDR vehemently opposes the present application by submitting that there is no parallel between this case and the case of Stragetic Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and that an application of this kind cannot be entertained in the normal course. It is submitted that the relevant submissions of the appellant were considered by this Bench for the purpose of taking a prima facie view vis- -vis. the appellant s plea for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Our stay order reflects a well-considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as the present case is concerned. 7. A modification application of this kind is, indeed, an application for review of the stay order passed by this Bench. Such a review is barred in law as held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baron International Ltd. v. Union of India - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 150 (Bom.). In the said case, the Hon ble High Court also laid down the manner in which a modification application could be dealt with by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal has to examine whether a prima facie case for modification of the stay order has been made out by the appellant. If it is found that no prima facie case has been made out, the modification application is to be dismissed as not maintainable. If a prima facie cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
