9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - 1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of Service Tax of Rs. 82.16 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.25 crores on the appellants. 2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is the contention by the ld. Counsel that the services which were provided by the applicant are fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them to the clients based in India and the Revenue is aware of their entire activity. On the other hand the ld. Jt. CDR submits that the issue is not so clear. He submits that the services which are rendered by the applicants are in India, may be for the foreign buyers, but services are rendered in India. As regards the issue on limitation, he submits that the appellant/applicant did not info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be applicable in this case. As such, we find that the issue has wider ramifications and may arise all over India, hence needs to be addressed urgently by the Tribunal. As such, we are of considered view that the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved needs to be allowed and we do so, and list the appeal for final hearing on 21-1-2008. 4. As such, the application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
