2017 (1) TMI 1620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the restoration application is now pending before the Tribunal - crippling the petitioner at this stage may not be in the interest of either of the parties. However, the fact remains that the amount that ought to have been paid by the petitioner by April, 2014, had been paid only after a period of two years - by imposing certain restrictions, the Garnishee orders could be lifted. Appeal res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority determined the service tax payable by the petitioner to a tune of ₹ 2,04,56,018/-. The Adjudicating Authority also demanded amounts of ₹ 3,38,930/- and ₹ 5,18,551/-, apart from making a demand for interest and imposing a penalty for an equivalent amount. 4. As against the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the CESTAT along with an application f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid. There is also no dispute about the fact that the restoration application is now pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that crippling the petitioner at this stage may not be in the interest of either of the parties. 8. However, the fact remains that the amount that ought to have been paid by the petitioner by April, 2014, had been paid only after a period of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X