9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner has been directed to deposit the entire amount of the penalties u/s 76 and 78. Tribunal's order of dismissing the appeal for non-compliance is hereby quashed and set aside. Order shall stand modified to the extent that instead of depositing the entire amount of penalties u/s 76 and 78, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the penalty u/s 78. - Special Civil Application No. 5026 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2012 - Akil Kureshi And Harsha Devani, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr Hasit Dilip Dave Respondent Rep. by : Mr A.Y. Kogje JUDGEMENT Per : Harsha Devani, J : 1. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a very narrow compass, the petition is taken up for final hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1668/2012. By an order dated 3rd February, 2012, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition for approaching the Tribunal for filing modification application. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed an application for modification of the stay order which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 20th March, 2012. However, while dismissing the application, the Tribunal extended the time limit for compliance of the impugned order dated 10th January, 2012 for a period of four weeks thereafter and directed the petitioner to report compliance on 19th April, 2012. 5. It is at this stage that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the previous order dated 10th January, 2012 as well as the subsequent order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law. Under the circumstances the amount of pre-deposit is required to be proportionately reduced in the light of the above statutory provisions. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in insisting upon payment of the entire amount of service tax, interest and penalties, thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the above provisions. 7 On the other hand, Mr. A.Y. Kogje, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition by submitting that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion on the question of pre-deposit and as such, the same does not warrant any interference by this court. 8. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has perused the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
