TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. The demand could not be said to be more than ₹ 23,12,868/- and, after the amendment, 7.5% of that could only be insisted upon as predeposit for the purposes of hearing of the appeal - Held that: - the appellant was ready and willing to put in the deposit of 7.5% of ₹ 23,12,868/- as pre-deposit for the purposes of hearing of the appeal - appeal restored with direction upon the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee received mobilization advance towards civil and road construction. The Revenue demanded service tax on such mobilization advance being the sum of ₹ 1,08,12,868/-. The appellant contended that part of the mobilization advance received was towards construction of road which is not exigible to service tax. The appellant computed its liability to pay service tax at ₹ 85 lakhs an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 85 lakhs was also directed against the appellant, penalty of the sum of ₹ 1,08,12,868/- imposed and further penalty of ₹ 5000/- imposed under section 77 of the said Act. Against the said order the appellant had sought to prefer the said appeal before the CESTAT along with an application seeking waiver of predeposit of service tax of ₹ 23.12 lakhs and penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as predeposit for the purposes of hearing of the appeal. He submitted, the direction made by the said decision dated 6/8th January, 2014 for deposit of the balance demand was illegal inasmuch as the entire pre-deopsit ought to have been waived. However, the appellant was ready and willing to put in the deposit of 7.5% of ₹ 23,12,868/- as pre-deposit for the purposes of hearing of the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
