9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BER Ch. Venkateshwara Rao for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka for the Respondent. ORDER P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member - Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Balasai Travels for their failure to comply with section 35F of the CE Act. 2. The original authority had confirmed a service tax of Rs. 5,93,032 found due from the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their appeal for their failure to make deposit under section 35F of the Act. He submits that the activity involved was provision of transport vehicles and not passenger vehicles. The service tax relatable to provision of passenger vehicle, under rent-a-cab operator scheme would be approximately Rs. 35,000. He offers to pre-deposit this amount. 4. We have also heard learned SDR who submits that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of passenger vehicles. Apparently the balance amount is wrongly confirmed. We find that pre-deposit of Rs. 35,000 is adequate to consider the appeal on merits. In the circumstances we order that the appellants shall make pre-deposit as offered and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 27-11-2009. On report of such compliance the Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the appeal on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
