2014 (1) TMI 721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act. The activities undertaken by the appellant are admittedly similar and the same are prima facie to be classified under the same heading. In other words, the appellant has no prima facie case against the impugned demand of service tax and the connected penalties - Following decision of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd., Satya Murthy, Maytas and Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax [2012 (6) TMI 165 - CESTAT, Bangalore] - Stay granted partly.
Mr. P.G. Chacko and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Havannur, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P. G. Chacko; This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver of pre- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the party was sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits factual parity between the instant case and the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. but submits that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted interim stay against the order passed in the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. and therefore the said order of this bench may not be followed as a precedent at this stage. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) submits that the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is an ex parte order against the department and is also not a speaking order to be followed in favour of the appellant. In this connection, he has claimed support from certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Empire Industries Ltd. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is nothing to be followed as a ratio. Had the Hon'ble High Court disclosed a prima facie view in favour of the assessee in the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. while granting interim stay, the position would have been different. Such a situation, however, is not forthcoming. 5. In this scenario, we are of the view that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case against the impugned demand. The entire demand being within the normal period of limitation and there being no financial hardships for the appellant, they shall pre-deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees two crores fifty lakhs only) within six weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar on 16.7.2013. Deputy Registrar to report on 23.7.2013. Subject to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X