9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Service Tax of Rs. 5,99,79,100/- with interest has been demanded from the appellant (CISF). Penalty equal to the Service Tax amount has also been imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notice was issued on 13-6-2012 and the period involved is from 1-4-2009 to 30-9-2011. 2. Learned counsel submits that as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s. RINL on CISF. The Department has contended that it is reimbursible expenditure. Prima facie, we find that this cannot be considered as reimbursible expenditure since in the first place this expenditure are not incurred by CISF at all. Therefore, prima facie, appellant has made out a case in respect of this amount. 4. The second demand is approximately Rs. 10.61 lakhs on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, in this case also, we do not find that it can be covered under reimbursible expenditure or under the category of payment for the service rendered. 6. In view of the above discussion, we find that prima facie, the appellant has made out a case. Accordingly, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of the adjudged dues during pendency of the appeal. (Pronounced and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
