9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Pre-Deposit - Relying upon Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs UOI [ 2007 (4) TMI 197 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] – Complete waiver of Pre-deposit was allowed to the Assessee - The order was an ex-parte order where there was a likelihood that all the defences of the party had come on record - the demand was worked out based on figures in Profit and loss account rather than contract-wise figures where the position regarding supply of free materials for each contract comes out clearly - The Revenue’s argument that construction of schools and colleges will come within the meaning of Commercial or Industrial Construction could not be accepted – Stay Petition allowed. - ST/104/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on 07-09-2011. However non-relied upon documents were not returned. Since non-relied upon documents were not returned to them, they could not effectively defend their case. They informed the position on 07-09-2011. However, they received the impugned order dated 23-12-2011. 3. The Counsel further submits that out of the disputed construction activity for which demand has been made, about 1/3rd is for private schools and colleges and Revenue has considered such construction work as Industrial or Commercial Construction which is not a legally maintainable stand. Though, there was no liability on the appellant in respect of such construction, they paid service tax on the value received by them. However, no differential duty liability ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs CCE Mangalore 2011 (22) STR 419 (Tri.-Bang.) 2) VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad 2011 (23) STR 279 (Tri.-Bang.). 6. He also submits that Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs CST Kolkata-2011 (263) ELT 195 (Cal.) has considered the Delhi High Court s decision in Era Infra Engg. Ltd. and Madras High Court s decision in L T Ltd. (supra) and disagreed with those decisions and considered that a reasonable pre-deposit would be proper for hearing of the appeal. 7. In a rejoinder, the counsel for the appellant submits that in the case of Jaihind Projects Ltd., the Tribunal remanded the matter for determination of the tax to be paid and there is an appeal filed by the assessee before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
