9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were waived. In this appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised: "1. Whether the order of the Tribunal is right in directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,52,81,707/- is unjustifiable inasmuch as the same was not lawfully made and made by invoking invalid provisions of the Finance Act, 1994? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal is justified in ordering pre-deposit overlooking the various grounds made by the appellant justifying the non-maintainability of the demand on merits and under law? 3. Whether the order of the Tribunal directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,52,81,707/- stands vitiated inasmuch as it fails to see that the condition imposed is such which for all intent and purport takes away the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted into the Government's treasury under rent-a-cab service. For this period, there is a dispute that the relevant taxing entry during the time did not cover the activity of the appellants because they were using vehicles like 50 seater buses for transportation. For the period 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2007, it is fairly clear that the entry covers the services provided. For this period a demand of tax amount of Rs. 2,41,51,207/- is confirmed along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, as service tax not paid by the appellant on such services rendered. For the latter period also Revenue submits that the appellants had collected service tax but not deposited with the Government. 2. There is no dispute on the facts that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The Tribunal has considered the prima facie case and ordered pre-deposit of the entire amount. When the matter was listed for reporting compliance, there was no plea made for extending the time to make pre-deposit, except stating that a writ petition has been filed challenging the conditional order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the fact that in the writ petition this Court has not granted any stay of order, dismissed the appeal for non compliance of the conditional order of pre-deposit. The said order passed by the Tribunal is justified, as this Court in the writ petition has not granted any stay of the conditional order passed by the Tribunal. No extension of time is sought f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
