9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal - Held that:- the order of the Tribunal itself shows that the appellant himself had admitted that 35 lakhs of the service tax demanded was for the normal period. This, therefore, mean that the issue of limitation, though not considered by the Tribunal, cannot have any relevance in so far as this 35 crores is concerned. Therefore, appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 35 lakhs within four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued a demand for service tax of about 1,72,48,949/- with interest and penalty. That demand was for the period 2006-07 to 2010-2011. In the appeal that was filed before the Tribunal, an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay was filed. On that application, Tribunal passed order dated 19.8.2013 requiring the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 1 crore. However, the amount was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no finding on the issue of limitation raised by the appellant and it was without dealing with that contention that the appellant was ordered to deposit ₹ 1 crore. In the judgment, this Court referred Section 73 of the Finance Act and set aside the order dated 19.8.2013 directed the Tribunal to consider the said contention and then proceed to pass a fresh order. However, order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeal again. 7. In such circumstances, instead of remitting the matter afresh to the Tribunal, we direct the appellant to deposit ₹ 35 lakhs within four weeks from today and report compliance before the Tribunal on 8.7.2015. Subject to deposit as above, pre deposit of the balance due under the order impugned before the Tribunal will stand dispensed with. The order of the Tribunal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
