9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Govind Dixit, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice G. Raghuram, President]. - This application is filed by the appellant for a determination that since it had already remitted about 73% of the assessed demand as against the requirement of 7.5% mandatory pre-deposit (under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended with effect from 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priated (in the impugned order) against the confirmed demand of Service Tax on rendition of supply of tangible goods for use service. 4. If the appellant had remitting the amount of Rs. 1,04,96,924/- for having provided supply of tangible goods for use service, we could have considered that remittance as a deposit in respect of the same taxable service confirmed to have been provided by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different category of service confirmed in the impugned order; or to enter into merits of the appeal. A mandatory deposit under Section 35F with effect from 6-8-2014 has dispensed with the adjudicatory process leading to a scaling down of the mandated pre-deposit, by exercise of judicial discretion (this was the legislative regime which was in force prior to 6-8-2014). Compulsory pre-deposit under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
