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

..... 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 prima facie case on merits to claim that the said ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f 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 authorised (validated) in terms of provisions contained in the Finance Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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-deposit will lead to dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F of the Act.
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X