9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The impugned order dated 21 March 2013 of the Tribunal, passed on application for dispensing with predeposit of duty and penalty, directed the appellant to pre deposit an amount of 50% of the service tax demand of Rs.3,44,45,034/. This deposit was a condition precedent for the purposes of entertaining the appellant's appeal before it, from the order dated 14 March 2012 of the Commissioner of Service Tax. 2) At the request of the Counsel for the parties the appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3) The appellant is in the business of operating and running of retail stores where goods of various brands are sold under one roof. The appellant grants concession to various concessionaires for display, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit of service tax and penalty under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act read with Section83 of the Act. 8) The Tribunal by the impugned order has directed a deposit of 50% of the service tax demand on a prima facie view that the appellant provides various facilities which could be categorized as infrastructure facilities to its concessionaires and these services were in the nature of services classifiable as business support service. The primary contention of the appellant that its transaction with the concessionaires was one of purchase and sale and therefore not service, was negatived by the impugned order holding that on the same service subsequent to 1 June 2007 the appellant have themselves been paying service tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for dispensing with predeposit of service tax and penalty and at the final hearing all contentions would be considered. In the circumstances, this Court should not interfere in the present facts particularly, when no financial hardship has been pleaded. In the circumstances, there is no warrant to vary the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 11) We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the appellant has commenced paying service tax on the service rendered by it to its concessionaire under the category of renting of immovable property immediately on its introduction in 2007. The respondentrevenue is collecting revenue under the head renting of immovable property. At no point of time did the revenue dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
