New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 621 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (6) TMI 621 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Waiver of pre-deposit - appellants sought rectification of mistake/modification of stay order - Held that:- the contention of the petitioner/appellant that the Tribunal committed an error and observed that petitioner has handed over 42 flats to the land owner does not appear to be correct. During the hearing, the Bench asked the learned counsel to point out in the impugned order, the relevant portion in which the valuation /demand is arrived at by obse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

interim order and further, from the facts presented by the case in hand, it appears that the facts are not identical.

The stay order does not call for any modification/rectification. The appellants are therefore, directed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit passed in the stay order dated 14-12-2015/12-04-2016 within a period of 4 weeks. - No relief to the assessee. - ST/22242/2014 - M/30042/2016 - Dated:- 20-5-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi ,C.S, Member(Judicial) and Mr.Madhu Moha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

error. 4. The second contention raised by the appellant is that, in the case of Developers M/s Sobha Ltd Vs CCE & ST LTU, Bangalore, Misc. order No.23375/2014, dated 02-12-2014 Cestat, Bangalore bench waived requirement of pre-deposit. That the Tribunal accepted the contention of the counsel for the appellant therein that no monetary consideration was agreed upon with the land owners and appellant as per the Joint Development Agreement and therefore consideration is not ascertainable. Once c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the decision passed by Bangalore Bench. 5. The learned AR vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the total demand raised is ₹ 64,18,263/- 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 ₹ 3,00,000/- along with interest of ₹ 4,000/- during investigation. He submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all facts a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments was executed by them. The owner(s) of the land were assigned 30 apartments and remaining were disposed off to other individuals under two categories of agreements, outright sale on the one hand and contract for construction of apartments on the other. Prima facie, it would appear that development of the property had been effected by construction of 42 apartments which were not handed over to the land owners as the consideration. It would, therefore, appear that the service had been rendere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version