9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent : Mr Pradeep S Jetly JUDGEMENT:- PC :- The appellant in this appeal under section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has challenged the order dated 8 July 2013 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting stay against recovery of tax, interest and penalty on the condition that the appellant shall deposit Rs.89 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the shipping line, i.e. alleged client of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that it provides no service to the shipping lines in respect of promotion of its cargo space. The appellant purchases the cargo space from the shipping lines for consideration and thereafter makes it available to the exporters for consideration. Therefore, the case of the appellant is that it trades in cargo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny amount/ payment from the shipping lines. Therefore, the appellant cannot be said to have provided any service to the shipping lines. 5. It is further submitted that by the impugned order the Tribunal has followed the decision of CESTAT Bench at Chennai in Leaap International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai , . In the said case, the Tribunal had directed the assessee to make a pre-deposit of only Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and calls for no interference. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Chennai Bench in Leaap International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai (supra) whereby the Tribunal had directed the assessee to make pre-deposit of Rs.30 lakhs against the tax demand of Rs.1.38 crore which was within the period of limitation and even so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
