TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NDIA], held that appellant failed to bring out a prima facie case in its favour. - Stay granted partly. - ST/1384/2010 - ST/487/2011 - Dated:- 2-8-2011 - Chittaranjan Satapathy , D N Panda, JJ. For Appellant: Shri A K Batra , Adv . For Respondent: Shri R K Gupta, SDR Per: D N Panda: Moving Stay Application ld. AR for the appellant submits that demand was raised against appellant on three counts. Service Tax demand of ₹ 73,437/- was made alleging that there was short payment of service tax, tax of ₹ 28,07,537/- was imposed taxing transaction charges to form part of gross value and there was levy of service tax of ₹ 71,92,261/- on the delay pay-in-charges classifying the service provided by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt neither acted as banker nor financial institution to invite incidence of levy. Similarly the IPO income received by the appellant is not taxable under business auxiliary service. Appellant was engaged by private service recipients in relation to registrar to issue and such a service is not taxable before 1.5.06. So also there was no suppression of fact to make adjudication which is time barred and no penalty was imposable. Therefore, his prayer is to waive requirement of pre-deposit for hearing appeal. 2. Ld. DR supports the adjudication order. 3. Heard both sides and perused findings of the ld. Adjudicating authority. 4.1 The authority examined the issue of reconciliation and found that there was a short payment of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providing services to registrar to issue and that was taxable. Through para 57 to 60.1 of the impugned order the Authority giving cum-tax benefit, determined aggregate service tax liability of ₹ 1,00,73,235/-. 5. Following the law declared in All India Federation of Tax Practitioners - 2007 (7) STR 625 (SC) and Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies - 2010 (20) STR 417 (SC) , we are of the view that appellant failed to bring out a prima facie case in its favour . Having given our thoughtful consideration to various aspects brought to our notice by appellant and as has been dealt by Adjudication order, we consider it proper to direct the appellant to make pre-deposit for protection of interest of Revenue. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
