TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is no violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order impugned and the procedures stipulated in Finance Act, 1994 has been thoroughly followed. Thus, the petitioner is bound to pay 7.5% of the total service tax demand of ₹ 63,79,561/- at the time of filing of appeal before the CESTAT. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the levy itself is unwarranted and as such the mandatory payment will cause undue hardship to them. In my considered view, in terms of the provisions of the Act, payment of 7.5% of the total tax demand is mandatory and that cannot be reduced by this Court and further, the petitioner could raise all the points raised before this Court before the CESTAT to substantiate its case. - Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible for the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST and impugned order dated 26.12.2014 has been passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sayyaji Hotels instead of the case of Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2013 (32) STR 783 (Tri-L.B) and further cited Section 7(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 regarding sale of goods by presuming that the petitioner is a dealer and of un-branded nor is the food ready-to-eat. He further submitted that without considering the valuable points adduced by the petitioner, the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract is composite but divisible since the value of service portion and material portion are identifiable. The bill will perforce indicate them separately. On the other hand, if the contract is of the third type, there is no intention between the parties to apportion the consideration between the cost of service and the cost of ingredients. Therefore, any split-up of cost that may be indicated in the bill will be a notional division only. In the first two cases, Notification No.12/2003-ST comes into play; whereas, in the last case, it does not. 5. In my considered view, whether the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST and whether the extended period of time under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
