2004 (7) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner (Appeals) whereunder the appeal of the appellants against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner was rejected. Vide the order of the Assistant Collector, the appellants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,70,707/- towards service tax liability under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants pray that they have strong pri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and to the service availer is not covered under Section 73 of the Act. 4. I have considered the submission and I note that reference to Section 73 is totally unjustified. Here the liability is cast on the person who is service availer. Since this is a special deeming provision in respect of availer of the services of Goods Transport operators and the recovery of Service Tax has been authorise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting to Rs. 3.28 crores (approximately) but I note that this would not come in way of any financial hardship since the company has substantial assets and deposits. Therefore, the stay petition is dismissed and the appellants are directed to make a pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax of Rs. 4,70,707/- within six weeks from today and report compliance on 1-9-2004. Failure to make a pre-dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X