9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order - appeal dismissed. - SERTA No. 25 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2016 - S. Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri, JJ. Shri J.K. Mittal with Rajveer Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Oral)]. - In this appeal, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, a gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 77 for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12; and penalty of Rs. 4,68,53,167/- under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 by holding the appellant was liable to pay service tax of Rs. 3,74,12,7611/- for the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11. Other demands on the basis of the adjudication were made. 3. The assessee/appellant approached the CESTAT; along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultimately found warranted. Counsel said that in the circumstances, the CESTAT should have given full waiver. 5. On an overall consideration of the facts, this court is unimpressed with the submissions made. The CESTAT granted substantial relief; only a small amount was directed to be deposited. No financial hardship has been shown warranting interference with the impugned order. 6. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
