TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, in fact, the erstwhile management had assured the present management that there were no dues outstanding to any department at the time of transaction. Held that:- Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, I direct that, if the petitioner discharges its liability to respondents 1 to 5 pursuant to Order (Original) No. 7/2011-S.T., dated 27-4-2011 in 10 equal successive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed on the petitioner company by way of service tax for the period 1-10-2001 to 31-3-2004 by Order (Original) No. 7/2011-S.T., 27-4-2011 of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kottayam Division. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that the petitioner-company was earlier being managed by the 7th respondent and the present management tookover only on 30-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision, was not the subject matter of challenge in any appellate proceedings instituted at the instance of the petitioner-company. That being the case, it has to be taken that the petitioner-company did not dispute the liability under the order dated 27-4-2011. Ext.P9 is the notice issued in terms of Section 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the purposes of recovery of amounts confirmed again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 pursuant to Order (Original) No. 7/2011-S.T., dated 27-4-2011 in 10 equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 5-2-2016, then further proceedings for recovery as against the petitioner including further steps pursuant to Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the petitioner proceeding against the 7th respondent fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
