9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. ORDER We have heard the authorized representative of applicant at length on modification of the stay order, by which the applicant was required to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 12 lakhs within 8 weeks, failing which, the appeal was to stand dismissed. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the limitation and financial hardship aspects have not been considered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord, concluded that the applicant had never shown the figures of freight, handling charges and warehousing charges in the ST-3 returns for the period covered by show cause notice, which was from April, 2000 to June, 2004. The show cause notice was issued on 1-11-2004. It was held that the required information with regard to freight, handling charges and warehousing charges was supplied by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es when the show cause notice for a different period was earlier issued. 4. As regards the contention that the applicant firm was incurring losses, it is noticed from the balance sheet as on 31-3-05 that there are ₹ 17,47,354.38 shown in partners capital account. Though this amount shown as liability of the firm towards the partners, since all the partners are jointly and individually li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that the applicant would undergo any financial crisis by depositing the amount of ₹ 12 lakhs. 6. The applicant-assessee was required to pay ₹ 49,04,116/- by way of Service tax and penalty of like amount was also imposed. Therefore, the pre-deposit of ₹ 12 lakhs, as ordered, comes hardly to 12% of the amount payable by the applicant under the impugned order. We do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
