2012 (12) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (AR) Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with application for stay against the impugned order where service tax demand of Rs.82,17,904/- along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 is confirmed against them for providing logistic services. 2. After hearing both the sides in detail we find that the matter can be disposed of at this stage itself for v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re having separate service tax registrations and, therefore, both are separate legal entity and a service tax demand of Rs. 27,31,760/- has been confirmed as during this period the appellant was service provider to FES division. The demand for the period 11/09/2008 to March, 2010 was confirmed for providing logistics service to FES division of Mahindra and Mahindra. Against the said order the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n from the reports of Range Superintendent of Mumbai, whether the appellant has paid the service tax or not. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterates the impugned order and further submitted that as the appellant did not produce any relevant documents at the time of adjudication, pandora's box cannot be opened at this stage as to whether they have paid the service tax or not? 6. Consideri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X