TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the books of account prior to May 14, 2008 and waiting for actual remittances. Amount in question was not realised till date and was shown in the balance sheet - they have also realised part amount and against which they have already paid an amount of ₹ 1,13,642. Prima facie, the Tribunal had given a detailed finding on the issue of applicability of the Explanation prospectively - applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of tax and penalty - Following decision of Sify Technologies Ltd. [2012 (5) TMI 376 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and [2010 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/117/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2013 - DAS P.K. AND MATHEW JOHN , JJ. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the respondent in the cause title is to be read as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai instead of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III. Registry is directed to correct the cause title accordingly and respondent is also directed to amend the cause title. Miscellaneous application is allowed. 3. Now, we take up the stay application. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax of ₹ 54,45,441 under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, appropriate interest under section 75 of the Act and penalty under section 76 of the Act. 4. The applicant was registered with the service tax authorities for providing man-power recruitment and supply services and engineering consultancy services. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnai reported in [2011] 46 VST 68 (CESTAT-Chennai); [2011] 21 STR 252 (TribChennai), wherein it was held that amendment would be applied prospectively. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the said decision was followed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. v. LTU, Chennai reported in [2011] 24 STR 449 (Trib-Chennai) and granted stay. 6. The learned authorised representative for the Revenue submits that in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. [2011] 24 STR 449 (Trib-Chennai), stay was granted by the Division Bench upon considering the fact that the entire tax was deposited and further, it was a case of waiver of interest and penalty only. He also submits that the words in the Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules. The Legislative intention behind the amendments was explained by the Board as for plugging avoidance of tax on the ground of non-realization of money from associated enterprises and the intention of the Legislature in bringing the amendments is to introduce a new provision and not to remove any doubts in the existing provision. It is not, nor can it be, anybody's case, that Explanation shall always take effect retrospectively. In the case of Commr. of Cus. (Airport), Chennai v. Skycell Communications Ltd. [2008] 232 ELT 434 (Trib-Chennai), the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that Explanation placing restrictions prejudicial to the assessee will not be retrospective. In the case of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the Division Bench case of Tribunal in Sify Technologies Ltd. v. LTU, Chennai reported in [2011] 24 STR 449 (Trib-Chennai), it was noticed that the amount realised by the assessee was deposited. In the present case, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the amount in question was not realised till date and was shown in the balance sheet. He further submits that they have also realised part amount and against which they have already paid an amount of ₹ 1,13,642. Prima facie, we find that the Tribunal had given a detailed finding on the issue of applicability of the Explanation prospectively. It is noticed that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. [2011] 24 STR 449 (TribChennai) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
