TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order suffers from limitation. According to the appellant, the appellant has sought registration under the category of repairs and maintenance service provider from July 2003. They have been paying the tax due thereon. The present adjudication relates to the period from 1-1-2001 to 30-6-03. Show cause notice for the present adjudication was issued on 15-5-06. Learned Counsel s grievance is therefore that when the materials were discovered on 7-2-01 that cannot be used against the appellant in the present adjudication for which show cause notice was issued on 15-5-06. He is very fair to state that earlier adjudication which emanated from the search, has resulted against the assessee for which the appellant being aggrieved was also before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be counted from 7-2-01 which ended with first adjudication. He brings to our notice that the search material was not merely guiding materials for the present adjudication. Appellant s activities have been tabled at page 32 of order of adjudication to invite present adjudication. Revenue was very fair to consider all submissions of the appellant in the paragraphs appearing at pages 33 to 41. After careful consideration of the materials and examination of evidence before the authority below, learned Adjudicating Authority exonerated the appellant from taxation in respect of Sl. Nos. 12, 13 and 14 depicted in table 2 appearing at page 42 of order of adjudication. The authority came to the conclusion that the nature of service provided on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the leviability of service tax on the value of taxable service provided is concerned. We are of firm belief that Revenue s interest may be prejudiced if we do not direct pre-deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) during pendency of the appeal when we do not find a prima facie case in favour of appellant and following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) and also the ratio laid down in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.) = 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) in this regard. We therefore direct the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) within s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
