9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first judgement of Prince Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) concerned a small tax payer. Judgements in the case of Ruhit Shukla & Associated (2007 (3) TMI 164 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) and Singh Industries Ltd. (2009 (7) TMI 513 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) related to initial periods when the levy had just been introduced. Therefore, in these cases a lenient view was taken. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA and were liable to pay service tax on this service under reverse charge mechanism. The levy was introduced from 1.1.2005. The appellant did not pay the service tax for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 (upto 30.9.2008). The amount of service tax payable was ₹ 15,97,132/-. This amount of service tax was paid before the issue of the adjudication order, along with interest. The appellant is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized that the tax was payable under law. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. The facts are not in dispute. The judgments cited by the Ld. Consultant are not applicable to the facts of this case. The first judgement of Prince Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) concerned a small tax payer. Judgements in the case of Ruhit Shukla & Associated (supra) and Singh Industries Ltd. (supra) related to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
