TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (2008 (12) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY). The demand in respect of period after 18.4.2006, it is evident that applicant already paid Rs.45,28,541/- and additional deposit of Rs.1.09 crores would partly include the present period. The applicant is also contesting the demand on time bar. In view of that, we find that applicant has made out prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of balance am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy towards royalty, agency commission and other technical charges. There is a demand of service tax as Rs.1,35,83,965/- along with interest and penalty for the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08. 2. The Ld. advocate submits that demand to the tune of Rs.35,45,997/- for the period prior to 19.4.06 is not sustainable in view of decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute. 3. Ld. AR submits that the Commissioner has given a detailed reasoning on time bar. He has also given the finding for the demand prior to 18.4.06 on the ground that amount was paid after that period. He submits that the payment made by the applicant of Rs.1.09 crores, they have not given any details vide unit wise chart and it would not cover the present period. 4. After consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
