2015 (10) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rnished that M/s HSCL paid service tax on behalf of/on account of the appellant. - the issue of invocability of extended period requires detailed analysis which can be taken up only at the time of final hearing but it is a factor to be taken into account at this interlocutory stage. - stay granted partly. - No. ST/Stay/52956/2014, ST/Misc./52957/2014 in ST/52484/2014-CU(DB) - Stay Order No. 53149 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod 2009-2010 it had been paying service tax and remitted ₹ 30,32,877/-. Prior to that, it was not registered but for the period prior to 2009-2010 service tax was paid by M/s HSCL (the service recipient). 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that there was no evidence that M/s HSCL paid the service tax on behalf of the appellant for the period prior to 2009-2010 when it was not even .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the time of final hearing but it is a factor to be taken into account at this interlocutory stage. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact the appellant has already paid ₹ 30,32,877/-, we are of the view that pre-deposit of ₹ 40 lakhs would meet the requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, we order pre- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X