9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Suchitra Sharma, AR ORDER PER ARCHANA WADHWA: The stay petition prays for dispensation of the condition of pre-deposit of service tax liability of Rs. 48,79,502/- and penalty of identical amount imposed under section 78 of the Act along with penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant was served upon with another show cause notice at Delhi on 27.4.2010. It is the contention of the learned advocate that during the relevant period, the law was not clear and the same was finally settled by the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Indian National Ship owners Association in the year 2009. By drawing our attention to the order of the original adjudicating authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Revenue was intimated about the said activity of the assessee, during the relevant period. In such a scenario, invoking the longer period is not barred by limitation. 5. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we find that admittedly, the notice stand issued in the April, 2010 for confirmation of demand of duty relating to the activity undertaken in December, 2006. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that the appellant has good case on limitation. 6. We further note that in terms of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has already deposited the amount of Rs. 4.88 lakhs approx. By treating the same as sufficient, and in view of our discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of the balance amount of tax and entire a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
