2019 (2) TMI 1347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n in M/s. Satya Prakash Builder Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Bhopal [2018 (8) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that The demand raised in the impugned order is erroneous being made on the refundable security deposit. Such refundable amount cannot form consideration as defined under Section 67 - the demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: ST/40 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,99,231/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 besides penalty under Section 77 of the Act ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant Ld. Counsel Ms. K. Nancy submitted that the issue whether service tax is liable to be paid on the advance d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X