TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount payable under the demand - Held that:- disposing the writ petition on 7-12-2009, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs within a period of three weeks from 7-12-2009. Since the copy of the order was received by the counsel for the petitioner, after the expiry of the three weeks period, the petitioner could not comply with the order. - Writ Petition No. 20059 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2010 - Chitra Venkataraman, J. Shri G.RM. Palaniappan, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Ms. P. Bhuvaneswari, SPC, for the Respondent. [Order]. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order in Application No. ST/S/100/09 in ST/169/09 dated 5-8-2009 [2010 (19) S.T.R. 728 (Tribunal)]. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from October, 2005 to 18-4-2006 and imposed penalty. It is stated that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,77,510/-, which was not given credit to by the second respondent. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal. 4. The second respondent remanded the matter once again for the period prior to 19-4-2006. For the period from 19-4-2006 to 30-9-2006, the second respondent confirmed the demand. It is stated that the petitioner had paid the service tax on the value of the services rendered after 19-4-2006. In this background, the petitioner states that in the appeal preferred before the first respondent, while considering the said application for waiver, the first respondent directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the valuation of the same on the tax rates applicable have to be determined in terms of the provisions of law in force at the time the consideration is received. The Tribunal felt that there could not be a complete waiver of the pre-deposit. However, taking note of the financial difficulties pleaded by the petitioner and the amount of Rs. 2,77,510/- already paid by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was directed to be paid by way of pre-deposit and report compliance on 19-10-2009. 8. On notice, the respondents filed counter contending that the Tribunal had rightly gone into the prima facie case and in exercise of its jurisdiction directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. The order of the Tribunal, hence, is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demand raised, this Court feels that as against the order passed by CESTAT directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, It would be suffice and in the interest of justice the petitioner be directed to deposit further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of such payment within the above said period, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed. 7-12-2009 12. [Order]. - This matter having been listed under the Caption for Being Mentioned. on Thursday the Twenty First day of January, 2010 pursuant to the order of this Court dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
