9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus there being a prima facie good case on limitation, it is fit and proper to allow stay of the balance demand of tax, interest and penalty till disposal of the appeal. - Stay granted. - Application No.ST/S/96754/14, Appeal No.ST/88511/14 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2014 - Anil Choudhary And P. S. Pruthi,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms Nehal Parikh, Adv. For the Respondent : None ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: Heard the parties. 2. The appellant M/s Interjewel Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cut and polished diamonds. The appellant imported rough diamonds from M/s Diamond Trading Company (DTC in short) which is part of M/s De Beers Ltd., U.K. The appellant is a sight-holder of DTC. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded for ₹ 1,33,60,102/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 68 and 66A read with Rule 3 (iii) of the Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rule, 2006 on the allegation that the appellant have, without obtaining Service Tax Registration, received Business Auxiliary Services provided by M/s Bonas Co. Ltd, for which the consideration was paid in foreign currency as commission, which is taxable w.e.f. 18.4.2006 on reverse charge basis in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, read with rule 3(i) of Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rule, 2006, along with demand of interest and penalty was also proposed under Sections 76, 77 and 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest and equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section 78 and also penalty of ₹ 5000/- under Section 77. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant urges, among others, that the whole demand relates to extended period. It is a matter of record and within the knowledge of the Revenue, as the dispute was pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court since 8.9.2006 when the Writ Petition was filed and the copy was served on the Standing Counsel for the Revenue/Central Government. There is prima facie good case on point of limitation and the learned Commissioner has erred in confirming the demand. Further, the appellants have already deposited 7.5% of the impugned demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
