9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax value. - there appears to be an element of justification in the assessee's plea that the demand of tax liability has to be considered by the Tribunal on merits - force in the plea of the appellant regarding undue hardship and financial difficulty in pursuing the appeal on payment of the pre-deposit as ordered by the Tribunal. Matter remanded back - Partial stay granted. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 268 of 2015 & M.P.No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2015 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N. Viswanathan For the Respondents : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan-R2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee against the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability during the disputed period? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the finding of the 2nd respondent/Commissioner, in sofar as it related to the confirmation of demand on the payments received the sundry debtors of the appellant pertaining to the period prior to 01.05.06 as shown in their profit and loss account overlooking the explanations offered by them in terms of the provisions of law as was existing at the material time? 5. Whether the order of the Tribunal directing the payment of pre-deposit without considering that the order of the original authority on the face of record clearly showed that it has no legs to stand on its own warranting the application of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the head allotment of airtime and uplink income covered under the category of broadcasting service, came into effect from 16.7.2001. Therefore, show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2010 demanding a sum of ₹ 1,03,34,893/- for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 along with interest and penalty under the category of Broadcasting Service . The Adjudicating Authority taking note of the service tax already paid by them confirmed the demand of ₹ 78,38,768/- along with interest and penalty. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit. 4. According to the assessee, up-linking agencies are not broadcasting agencies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation. 6. However, taking note of the deposit made by the assessee at ₹ 4,90,003/- after the issuance of show cause notice, the Tribunal ordered pre-deposit of ₹ 20 lakhs as against the demand of ₹ 78 lakhs. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed another miscellaneous petition seeking modification of the order. 7. The Tribunal, by order dated 29.10.2014 disposed of the miscellaneous application in Misc. Order No.41842 of 2014, where again the submission made by the appellant based on the balance sheet was rejected by the Tribunal holding that prima facie they are in agreement with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal reserved the right to go into the factual issue at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, we find that there has been certain payments made after the issuance of show cause notice as against the demand and the Adjudicating Authority has given certain benefits. After taking note of the plea of no service tax liability, we find that the Original Authority has revised the cum tax value. We find that the Adjudicating Authority revised the cum tax value in paragraph 11 of the order, which reads as follows: 11.0 I have carefully gone through the records of the case, reply of the noticee and the submissions made by them at the time of personal hearing. The noticees main contentions can be summarized as follows The value has to be taken as cum-tax as it has been taken from debtors account. The noticee's activities do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered by the Tribunal. The same, therefore, requires to be modified considering the prima facie case of the appellant. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order: (i)On the questions of law raised, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in ordering the pre-deposit; (ii)Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 29.10.2014 is modified to the effect that the appellant shall make a pre-deposit of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards pre-deposit on or before 31.03.2015 and subject to such compliance, as stated in the order of the Tribunal dated 28.05.2014, the pre-deposit of balance amount demanded shall remain waived and its collection shall stand stayed during the pendency of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
