9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority - In the case in hand, the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority. The total demands confirmed on the appellant is approximately ₹ 4.31 crores and the pre-deposit mandated by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on this amount is approximately ₹ 32 lakhs. Considering the certificate issued by Hindustan Unilever Limited that there is a discharge of service tax liability which, may be subsumed in the demands raised by the appellants, we hold that the provisions of Section 35F are satisfied and direct the registry to take on record the appeal and list the same for disposal without any further pre-requirement of an amount as pre-deposit for hearing the appeal on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst order, dated 31.03.2017, of respondent No. 2 without considering the petitioner s plea that its principal viz., Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL Limited) has paid about ₹ 95,00,000/- towards GTA services, which cover even the service charges sought to be recovered from the petitioner and that if the said amount is given credit to, the petitioner will not be liable to make any pre-deposit amount in the appeal. Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has, however, disputed the same. 2. In our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be heard by respondent No.3 on the above mentioned aspects for as per its plea HUL Limited has already discharged its liability towards GTA services, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable to the Finance Act, 1994, we find that the said section mandates for predeposit of an amount equivalent to 7.5% of the demands confirmed if the order challenged is passed by the Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority. In the case in hand, the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority. 5. The entire case of the Learned Counsel is that though the tax has been confirmed against the appellant, part of the tax amount involved is discharged by Hindustan Unilever Limited on reverse charge mechanism on the amount of freight charges incurred. She draws our attention to the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and also the letter dated Hindustan Unilever Limited certifying that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
