9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r). While disposing the Petition the High Court passed the following order : "The petitioner is the holder of Service Tax Registration under Section 69 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, for the purpose of payment of Service Tax on various categories of taxable services including Airport Services. The respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice, dated 26-3-2009 alleging that the petitioner had availed the benefit of CENVAT credit of excise duty irregularly and calling upon to show cause as to why the ineligible Cenvat credit should not be recovered in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 apart from interest and penalty as per Rule 15(4). After considering the petitioner's explanation and affording an opportunity of personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, for the nonce we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned adjudication order, on condition that the petitioner-appellant remits an amount of Rs. 18.65 crores to the credit of Revenue within 12 weeks. This amount approximately comprises 50% of the assessed liability in respect of the disallowed component (a) and the entirety of components (b) to (g) set out in para 2 supra. On default of deposit as ordered herein and within the time stipulated, the waiver and stay hereby granted shall stand dissolved, forthwith on occurrence of the default, without further reference to the Tribunal. The petitioner shall report compliance by 28-10-2013. The learned advocate for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner has made out a prima facie case, imposition of any condition is not warranted to safeguard the interests of the revenue and therefore the 1st respondent ought to have granted total stay of the pre-deposit. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner that the demand made by the 2nd respondent by the Order-in-Original, dated 29-1-2010 is barred under Section 11A of the Act is the question which requires consideration in the main appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal and therefore no finding as such can be recorded at this stage. So far as the waiver of pre-deposit as provided under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
