9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of ld. counsel for the applicant No.2. Therefore, we direct that the applicant No.2 to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 15,00,000/- within 8 weeks and report compliance on 24.03.2015. On such compliance, the balance amount of service tax, interest and penalties against both the applicants shall be remained waived off during pendency of the appeals. - Partial stay granted. - ST/STAY/59848 & 59860/2013-CU[DB],ST/59197 & 59238/2013-CU[DB] - Stay Order No. 50136-50137 - Dated:- 7-1-2015 - Mr. Ashok Jindal And Mr. R. K. Singh,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Shailesh P. Seth, Advocate, Shri BL Narasimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, DR ORDER Per Mr. Ashok Jindal : The applicant No.2 is seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by invoking extended period of limitation. The demands proposed in the Show Cause Notice were confirmed along with interest and various penalties were imposed against both the applicants. Now both the applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the demands/penalties confirmed against them. 3. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. counsel for the applicant No.2 submits that the applicant No.2 was under bona fide belief that on their activity, service tax was not payable as they have engaged in the activity of EICS of various ports and which is exempted from service tax and therefore, they could not pay the service tax. He further drew our attention to various work orders where their major work was fabrication and fabrication does not cover EICS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w out attention to the Show Cause Notice, whereas the authorized representative of the applicant No.2 in his various statements stated that they have been directed by the applicant No.1 not to pay the service tax and the bills towards their works also prepared by the applicant No.1. Therefore, applicant No.2 cannot take the benefit of bona fide belief since they have not paid the service tax. He further submits that the applicant No.1 also stated in their statements that wherever the work order is shown service tax rate is 0, in that case service tax is inclusive and it is the liability of applicant No.2 has to pay the service tax correctly. These facts were known to the Department only during the investigation. Therefore, the extended peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
