9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to pay a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-, towards pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty, demanded of him, in order to enable prosecution of appeal before the Tribunal. 2.1.The appellant was granted four weeks, from the date of the order, to make the deposit and, compliance qua the same was required to be reported on 26.07.2012. 2.2.The appellant, being aggrieved by the order, preferred the instant appeal. 3.The appeal came up for hearing before this Court for the first time on 05.07.2012, when, this Court stayed the direction requiring the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- by way of predeposit. 3.1.Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Court on 18.07.2012, at which point, the appeal was admitted and the following quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration from the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai, under the category : 'site formation and clearance services'. 6.A perusal of record would also show that upon being audited by the Internal Audit Group of the concerned Commissionerate, certain irregularities were noticed, which led to issuance of a Show Cause Notice (in short, SCN) dated 05.04.2010. 6.1.By virtue of the said SCN, the appellant was called upon to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 1,94,18,848/-. The demand was raised for the periods, spanning between 16.06.2005 and 31.12.2008. 6.2.Furthermore, by virtue of the same notice, the appellant was called upon to show cause, as to why : an amount of Rs. 2,05,125/- paid by him on 18.02.2009, ought not to be appropriated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arapore and Company, Engineers and Contractors'. 8.2.As a matter of fact, the record shows that the exact amount claimed to have been paid by the said main Contractor, is the sum of Rs. 1,08,21,372/-. 8.3.This fact, emerges upon a perusal of a communication dated 19.06.2010, addressed by Tarapore and Company, to the appellant, which is appended at page 19 of the paper book. 8.4.Furthermore, it is an accepted position that a sum in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been paid by the appellant/ Assessee; a fact, which also finds mention in the SCN. The exact amount, though, is a sum of Rs. 2,05,125/-. 8.5.Despite the aforesaid, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that a further sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-, ought to be paid by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crores, the appellant has, admittedly, albeit, via, the main Contractor, deposited, approximately, even according to the Revenue, a sum of Rs. 1.08 Crores. 13.1.Furthermore, the appellant has also paid, as alluded to above, sums in the excess of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 13.2.In our view, the interest of the Revenue is more or less secured by virtue of deposit of the aforementioned amounts. 13.3.The Tribunal, was in fact required to examine in terms of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (in short "the Act") as to whether or not, in its opinion, deposit of the tax demanded or penalty levied, would cause undue hardship to the appellant, and thus, based on the result of enquiry to determine to what extent waiver of demand, if at all, had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
