9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent ORDER [Per P.G. Chacko] This application filed by the applicant seeks waiver and stay in respect of the adjudged dues. A breakup of the main demand is as follows: i) ₹ 1,13,658/- being the service tax not paid on reimbursed expenses for the period from January to March 2009. ii) ₹ 26,60,495/- being the CENVAT credit availed on input services for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is in view of this case law that we have found prima facie case for the appellant against the demand indicated at Sl. No. (iii) above. 2. Insofar as the demand mentioned at Sl. No. (ii) above is concerned, we have not found prima facie case for the appellant. During the material period (April 2008 to September 2009), the appellant paid service tax on Construction Service but by claiming aba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it so that their claim of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST ibid would be in order. Therefore, against the demand of ₹ 26,60,495/-, the appellant has not made out a prima facie case on merits. The small demand mentioned at Sl. No. (i) above has not been the subject matter of any serious debate before us. 3. The learned counsel has also pleaded limitation against the demands. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of limitation. We also find that the above documents were not referred to in the appellant s reply to the show-cause notice. In this scenario, the plea of limitation is also not prima facie acceptable. The present application does not plead financial hardships. 4. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- (rupees twen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
