9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time in the appeal - since the BSNL is a Corporation, which is owned and controlled by the Central Government, the CESTAT should have considered the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty as the question raised in view of the amendments in Rule 6 (1) (ii) vide Notification dated 1.3.2011 - Conditional stay granted. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 311 of 2013, Central Excise Appeal No. - 321 of 2013 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.22,29,549/- and penalty of an equal amount of service tax was raised against the appellant. The CESTAT found that neither in response to the show cause notice nor before the adjudicating authority the appellant had contended that Rs.22,29,549/- is not liable to be remitted as service tax, since the amount was not received during the period in question. The CESTAT found that a new plea was raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regard", was added by the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2011 w.e.f. 1.4.2011 vide Notification dated 1.3.2011. He submits that w.e.f. 1.4.2011 the service will be deemed to be provided as per the rules and thus the billed amount or the charged amount has to be deposited by 5th day of the month immediately following the quarter in which the service is deemed to be provided as per the rules. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of hearing. 7. We, however, find that since the BSNL is a Corporation, which is owned and controlled by the Central Government, the CESTAT should have considered the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty as the question raised in view of the amendments in Rule 6 (1) (ii) vide Notification dated 1.3.2011 is debatable. 8. The Central Excise Appeal No.311 of 2013 is partly allowed to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
