TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Jayaraman, Member (T) [Order per: S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - Both the stay applications pertarn to the same appellants. Hence they are taken up together for common disposal. In the case of Appeal No. ST/347/07 in Stay application No. 236/07 the duty amount is Rs. 7,87,77,447/-. This amount has been deposited. There is an equal amount of penalty and other penalties for which appellants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit. The appellants contention is that the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench and when the matters are before Larger Bench then the issue is deemed to be contentious and in such circumstances, the Tribunal as a practice grants waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. He submits that they have deposited the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner who has distinguished the same. Learned Counsel submits that there was no cause for invoking larger period as the Revenue had dropped the proceedings for the earlier period. Hence revenue is barred from recovering the amounts, as the amounts are hit by time bar. 5. Learned SDR submits that there is no res judicata or estoppel in the matter. The clarification has been clearly distinguished in the present case. Therefore, the appellants do not have a strong prima facie case in the matter and as they have not pleaded financial hardship, they should be directed to pre-deposit the amounts to safeguard the revenue interest. Learned SDR submits that the designs in question on which service tax has been demanded fall withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. At this prima facie stage we cannot say that the clarification is not applicable to the facts of the case. In any case, the plea of revenue neutrality is required to be considered in the light of the Apex Court judgment in CCE, Jamshedpur v. Jamshedpur Beverages (supra). We take on record the plea that the appellants are paying more than Rs. 250 crores per annum towards tax. There is no threat to the revenue for recovering this amount. Hence, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of predeposit and staying its recovery. The revenue shall not proceed to recover even after expiry of 180 days in view of the latest Supreme Court and the Tribunal rulings in the matter. Both the Appeals to come up for hearing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
