2013 (2) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant Rep by: Shri S Jaikumar, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Shri D.P. Naidu, SDR Per Ashok Jindal : The applicants are providing Rent-a-Cab service'. Service tax has been demanded from them for the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 to the tune of Rs.30,09,008/- and for the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 amounting to Rs.62,89,935/-. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applican .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he same issue in the case of DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2012-TI0L-705-CESTAT-MUM, this Tribunal had again asked the appellants to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the demand of service tax within the period of limitation but in that case, this Tribunal has not considered Section 51 of the SEZ Act. Therefore, if the provisions of Section 51 of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eriod, which works out to Rs.9.5 lakhs (approx.). Further, the contention raised by the learned counsel that at the time of passing of decision in the case of DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has not considered Section 51 of the SEZ Act, therefore, stay be granted. As we are not convinced with the argument of learned counsel, the same shall be considered at the time of final h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X