TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal is time barred, the petitioner cannot at this point of time approach to the Tribunal for re-considering the amount payable by the petitioner, for being entitled to for a fresh opportunity. The petitioner should abide by the condition to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay 15% of the Service Tax demanded, viz., 15% of ₹ 45,70,803/-, within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with the consent on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The order impugned in this writ petition is an order-in-original dated 23.03.2016, in and by which, the petitioner has been directed to pay the Service Tax of ₹ 45,70,803/-, being the Service Tax payable under the Fashion Designing Services for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out the findings recorded by the Adjudication Officer in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, which pertains to the reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing. It is evidently clear that the petitioner evaded the notices issued by the Department. The conduct of the petitioner is not appreciable. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther observes that a condition, directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the Service Tax demanded, will be a condition precedent for him to once again go before the authority. The learned counsel pointed out that even for filing an appeal before CESTAT, the pre-deposit required to be made is only 7.5% and therefore, this Court should re-consider the amount payable by the petitioner, for being entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
