TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not liable to third party because of the use of tug on the contract and the contractor was required to take third party liability insurance - The points as urged by the learned AR create a doubt about the case of the appellant in their favour. Waiver of Pre-deposit – Prima facie assessee was not able to made out a prima facie case in their favour - having regard to the fact that the amount involved in respect of the normal period is only Rs.44 lakhs only Rs.10 lakhs would be sufficient for the purpose – after such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal of the case – Conditional stay granted. - Appeal No.ST/1548/2012 - MISC. ORDER NO.26859/2013 - Dated:- 2-8-2013 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY AND SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of G.S. Lama Sons, Secunderabad Ors. Vs. State of AP [(2011) 52 APSTJ 191] to submit that the case is similar to the appellant’s case and under similar circumstances the Hon’ble High Court took the view that levy of sales tax is appropriate. Further he also relies upon the decision in the case of GMMCO Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2013-TIOL-734-CESTAT-MUM] to submit that in similar circumstances unconditional waiver was granted. He also drew attention of the Bench to specific clauses of the agreement to show that the activity does not amount to SOTG service at all. 3. The learned AR on the other hand would submit that in this case the effective control and right of possession were not transferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not a final decision and therefore it may not be appropriate to follow the same blindly unless we are able to come to the conclusion that the agreements are similar. As regards the decisions relied upon by the learned AR, we find that in the case of Atwood Oceanics Pacific Ltd. (supra), the claim of the appellant was for classification under STOG service and the dispute was between mining service and SOTG service and therefore the conclusions of the Tribunal may not be applicable to the present case. In the same manner, the decision in the case of Adani Gas Ltd. (supra) also cannot be considered as laying down a ratio applicable to the present case in view of the fact that what was under consideration was gas meters installed in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
