9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: D M Misra: This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs. 58.32 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78, penalty of Rs. 1,74,400/- under Section 77 (1)(a) and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the ld.C.A. appearing for the Applicant, submits that during the relevant period i.e. from 01.10.2006 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hati High Court. The Hon'ble Single Judge of the i High Court vide Order dated 04.10.2007, quashed the said demand notice. On Appeal by the Revenue, the said Order was confirmed by the Division Bench. He submits that for similar services, involving the Work Order dated 24.07.2007, the present demand notice is issued invoking extended period again . He submits that there is no change in the sco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Work Order dated 11.02.2004. He fairly accepts that both the Work Orders are more or less involve similar activities. However, he submits that since the earlier contract, got terminated and no new contract had been entered from 2007, therefore, subsequent demand notice cannot be termed as barred by limitation. He categorically submits that since the Applicant had started discharging service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice issued on 17.04.2012 invoking extended period of limitation would sustain, when the earlier show-cause notice, was quashed on the ground of limitation by the Hon'ble High Court. In the result, the Applicant could able to make out a prima-facie case for requirement of predeposit of all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery is stayed during pendency of appeal. Stay petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
