9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1994 and to report compliance by 5th July, 2011, failing which the appeal would be liable to be dismissed without any further notice. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is apparently engaged in the execution of works contracts for industrial organizations, which includes supply of materials and service of construction, erection, commissioning installation, interior decoration, etc. 3. According to the petitioners, the design or the drawings as needed for execution of works contracts are supplied by the customers or their nominated architects to the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 supplies the materials for the execution of the works contract. 4. According to the petitioners, the nature of jobs of the petitioner No. 1 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners, the petitioner No. 1 paid Rs. 7 lakhs by the cheques specified in paragraph 7 of the writ application. Whether the cheques towards Service Taxes allegedly due and payable by the petitioner No. 1 were paid voluntarily or in the circumstances alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition is not for this Court to decide, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. While the aforesaid investigation was going on, a notice dated 20th September, 2007 was issued alleging that the services rendered by the petitioner was liable to Service Tax with effect from 1st June, 2007 under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, that is, for the service of execution of works contracts. 10.&emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioners and/or their representatives were informed that they would be intimated of the next date of hearing. The petitioners have alleged that they were not intimated of the next date of hearing. 14. By an ex parte Order bearing No. 14/Addl.Commr/ST/Kol/2009-2010, dated 22nd July, 2009 the Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 26,86,365/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 26,86,365/- under Section 78 and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 allegedly behind the back of the petitioners. A sum of Rs. 9,48,133/- was appropriated. 15. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and made an application for stay of pre-deposit which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Moreover Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 has expressly made the provision of inter alia Section 35F of the Central Excise Act applicable to Service Tax, as it applies to Central Excise. 19. Under Section 35F pre-deposit is a condition precedent for filing of an appeal. However, the requirement of pre-deposit might be dispensed on the application of an assessee. 20. Financial hardship is undoubtedly a kind of hardship. In deciding an application for dispensation of pre-deposit, the Appellate Authority is thus required to consider the financial capacity of the assessee to make the pre-deposit. In the absence of any pleadings relating to financial position of the assessee or in the absence of documents that show financial we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
