9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the demand and penalties in the impugned order till disposal of the appeal and also directed to report compliance within four weeks. The copy of the order was communicated to appellants on 12-04-2016. 2. The case came up on 16-05-2016 before us for reporting compliance. The appellants then sought rectification of mistake/modification of stay order by the above application. 3. The foremost contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in the Order-in-Original the demand has been confirmed observing that appellant had handed over 30 apartments to the land owners in all the three ventures undertaken by appellant. That though the Tribunal in para 4 of the Stay Order took note of this fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,263/- along with interest and equal amount penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 besides penalties imposed under Section 77(1) and (2) of the said Act The appellants have paid only Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest of Rs. 4,000/- during investigation. He submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all facts at the stage of hearing of interim stay application and had directed to pre-deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- which is reasonable. That there is no error apparent on the face of record in the Stay Order. 6. Before analyzing the rival submissions, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the Stay Order of which the appellant submits that there is an error apparent on face of record. " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the opinion that the Annexures/tables to the show cause notice will have to be analysed in detail along with construction agreements and other records at the time of final hearing of the case. However, at this stage, such detailed examination is not called for. Viewed in this light, we do not think that there is any error in the stay order which needs to be rectified. 8. With regard to the contention of the appellant that the Bangalore Bench of Cestat has granted entire waiver of pre-deposit, we are not bound by the said decision in stay application, as it is not a precedent being an interim order and further, from the facts presented by the case in hand, it appears that the facts are not identical. 9.&nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
