TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject to payment of which, recovery of remaining demands in respect of other appeals will stand stayed till the disposal of the appeals – decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21382-21392/2014 - Stay/Misc. Order No. M/30110 to 30131 - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member (Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) ORDER These eleven appeals came up for stay and condonation of delay(COD). Regarding the COD, Shri G. Shivadass, Id. Advocate for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner after rectification application was issued on 20/01/2014, which they received on 22/01/2014; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,26,0186 5,13,10,905 8,77,37,460 27,68,54,418 iv ICFAI Hyderabad 57,66,13,560 19,42,54,186 20,60,76,493 1,65,500 2,61,368 2,30,686 97,76,01,793 v ICFAI University, Dehradun 1,33,06,780 1,37,63,987 4,50,03,193 5,98,36,600 3,88,35,839 3,13,05,220 20,20,51,619 vi ICFAI University Jharkhand -- -- -- 23,92,861 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned advocate further made the following submissions : - i. For the period between 2005 to 2010, the issue stands covered by the Stay Order No. 30080 to 30083/2016 dt. 20/06/2016 passed by the Hon ble CESTAT, Hyderabad in their own case, pertaining to the period 2003-2005. The Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Indian School of Business Vs. CC, CE ST-IV vide Misc. Order No.20021 dt. 08/01/2014, which arises out of the same Final Order No.514-520/2012 of the CESTAT, Bangalore (applicants were one of the parties) wherein pre-deposit has been waived for the period upto 27/02/2010. ii. The applicants are educational bodies conferring degrees which are expressly excluded from the definition of 'commercial training or co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r demands in the aforesaid eleven appeals are sustainable for the reasons put forth by him. 5. Learned Ar Shri Nagaraj Naik Vehemently opposed the stay applications. He submitted that the impugned orders are correct in law and have been passed by adjudicating authority after application of mind. However, he fairly conceded that Stay Order No 30080 to 30083/2016 dt. 20/06/2016 referred to by learned advocate does, in fact, grant stay on the issue for the period 2005 to 2010. 6. Prima facie, we find merit in the contentions of the appellants. It also appears that the issue is debatable at least from the date 01.05.2011 when the said amendment was brought about through Finance Act, 2011. However, by the appellants' own admission, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
