9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement), while they required to pay the service tax @ 8% and 10.2% (i.e. the rate prevailing at the time of receipt of the EMI) – in identical issue, order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Art Leasing Ltd. seems to cover the issue in favour of the applicant – stay granted - ST/180/2008 - S/555/2008-WZB/MUM/C-II/(CSTB), - Dated:- 18-9-2008 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and K.K. Agar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not discharged the correct service tax liability. Thus, the contention of the Revenue is that the applicant has discharged the service tax liability @ 5% and 8%, while they required to pay the service tax @ 8% and 10.2% prevailing at the time of receipt of the EMI. 3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned CA appearing on behalf of the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.R. 162 (Tribunal) = 2007-TIOL-1493- CESTAT-BANG. 5. Learned SDR on the other hand draws our attention to the paras 11 and 12 of the impugned order and submits that it correctly concludes the arguments put-forth by the applicant. He reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that the applicant can be paid fair sum as pre-deposit. 6. On perusal of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
