2013 (2) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s been demanded from them for the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 to the tune of Rs.30,09,008/- and for the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 amounting to Rs.62,89,935/-. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that for the demand of Rs.30,09,008/- as there were contrary decisions to this Tribunal, they were under the impression that they were not liable to pay service tax and, theref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lants to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the demand of service tax within the period of limitation but in that case, this Tribunal has not considered Section 51 of the SEZ Act. Therefore, if the provisions of Section 51 of the SEZ Act are considered, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax on this amount. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel for the applicants prayed that as the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has not considered Section 51 of the SEZ Act, therefore, stay be granted. As we are not convinced with the argument of learned counsel, the same shall be considered at the time of final hearing. Therefore, following the decision of DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct the applicants to make a pre-deposit 50% of the impugned demands for the normal perio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X