TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The appellant being aggrieved by the levy of service tax of Rs. 1,73,59,527/- (Rupees One crore seventy-three lakhs fifty-nine thousand five hundred and twenty-seven only) under the category of providing of "Tour Operator Service" and also levy of penalty under different provisions of law has come in appeal. 2. Principal grievance of the appellant as per learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant is that the authority below has erroneously treated the services provided by the appellant to be a Tour Operator, while it was a mere sub-contractor of principal Tour Operator. Service tax was paid by principal tour operator. According to the appellant, the authority has also failed to appreciate that tou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Court, undertaking to pay the service tax to be assessed in the event the appellant is held liable to pay so. Accordingly, when there is a liability that has arisen, the appellant has no scope to deny payment thereof. 2.3 According to learned JCDR that learned Adjudicating Authority has dealt all the points raised by the appellant in the course of adjudication and passed a reasoned and speaking order considering evidence on record. He dealt every aspect of the matter. The finding and discussion of the learned Adjudicating Authority appearing on page 12 to page 29 of the order of adjudication demonstrates his application of mind and also understanding of the matter in controversy, by him, thoroughly. Therefore, entire demand raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y law, is not explained. 3.3 When the learned authority found that there was no intimate connection nor nexus between the service provided by the appellant and the principal tour operator and deposit of service tax by principal tour operator related to the service provided by the appellant, learned Adjudicating Authority was handicapped to consider the submissions of the appellant as to plea of double taxation of same service. Prima facie, we are unable to appreciate pleadings of appellant in view of specific CENVAT credit provisions existing in law to remove cascading effect. No findings of Authority below was brought to our notice in the course of hearing to appreciate that the very same service provided by the appellant was subjected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of hearing as to the legal infirmity of bar of limitation. 4. Looking to various angles as aforesaid and also considering the rival submissions of both sides, as against the service tax demand of Rs. 1,73,59,527/- reduced by an appropriated amount of Rs. 2,94,917/- we are of the view that Revenue's interest shall be prejudiced if total waiver of pre-deposit is directed during pendency of the appeal. 4.1 In the course of hearing, the appellants furnished a provisional Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2009. Also a provisional profit and loss account was enclosed to the said Balance Sheet. This document does not show that the appellant has unsound financial position. No circumstance was also brought it to our notice to appreciate that our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
