9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong mention of figures in column 13 & 14 of the ST-5 Form. The appeal has been erroneously numbered by the Registry and come up for hearing on the petition for condonation of delay - it is fit to give time to the appellant to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit as the appellant was not put to notice about such non-compliance - appellant is directed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of service tax demanded and amount of service tax deposited is shown as ₹ 32,18,458/-. As per the impugned order the amount of service tax confirmed is ₹ 47,79,771/-. The appellant ought to have paid 7.5% of the said confirmed demand. Instead, in Column No. 14 the appellant has mentioned Rs.xx32,18,458/- as the amount paid and appropriated by the adjudicating authority and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said amount was mentioned in column 14 of ST-5 Form as being sufficient compliance of pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no such appropriation made by the adjudicating authority. The demand confirmed is ₹ 47,79,771/-. Therefore appellants have to pay 7.5% of this amount as ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
