TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shatra being sold by the appellant - Held that:- When the question for consideration before the Tribunal is an arguable one, particularly the interpretation of the agreements, there is no justification for directing the appellant assessee to deposit the penalty amount. The case of the appellant is that no service was received by them from DTC and the payment made under the agreement is in the natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avi For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Ms. Suchitra Kamble JUDGEMENT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14 May 2013 of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) requiring the appellant to make a predeposit of service tax of Rs.1, 13,13,784 /- including interest thereon and equivalent penalty as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verse charge basis. 4. As against the above, Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that the impugned order is just and calls for no interference. 5. Having heard the parties, we are of the view that when the question for consideration before the Tribunal is an arguable one, particularly the interpretation of the agreements, there is no justification for directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified by deleting the direction for predeposit of interest and penalty. Direction for pre-deposit of service tax amount of Rs.1, 13,13,784 /- including cesses stands. 7. As regards time limit to make predeposit of the service tax amount, we extend the time limit upto 15 November 2013. On deposit of the amount being made, there shall be stay again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
