9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was an institute or an establishment providing commercial training to their employees which will be looked into at the time of appeal hearing at length. Relying upon Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [2013 (9) TMI 866 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the demand was raised on the basis of insertion of Explanation to Section 65 (105) (zzc) by Finance Act, 2010, which had retrospective effect from 1.7.2003 - The applicant is a State Government undertaking and prima facie, there was no rational to invoke extended period of limitation - the applicant is incurring huge loss as evident from the balance sheet - it was a fit case for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of tax along with interest and penalty and stay its recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government undertaking and therefore there is no intent to evade payment of tax. He further placed balance sheet of Tamil Nadu State Corporation Ltd. as on 31.3.2012. He submits that on an identical situation the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2013 (30) STR 457 and in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Adjudication), Service Tax 2013 (30) STR 449 (Del.) granted unconditional stay on the ground of financial hardship. 3. The learned counsel reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that after insertion of the Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994, the scope of commercial training or coaching centre has widened. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T - was that the spaces which it had given to two customers meant that the latter had to deposit the service tax and that indeed they represented through documents that such liability is being discharged. However, later events disclosed that this was not the correct situation and that the spaces had further been sold and that the deposits had not been made. Having regard to these circumstances and particularly the fact that the DTC is a public authority and would be ultimately in a position to discharge the liability determined by Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the condition imposed cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 5-12-2011 requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 3.5 crores is accordingly set aside. The CESTAT is directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
