TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 In Appeal No. ST/364/2010 - MO/50169/2019-CU[DB] - Dated:- 18-2-2019 - Justice Shri Dilip Gupta, President And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Smt. Dania Nayyar, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent ORDER Per Justice Dilip Gupta 1. This appeal was filed way back on 26 April, 2010 with an application that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal should be dispensed with. The application was disposed of by order dated 3 December, 2010 by requiring the appellant to deposit the entire amount of service tax demand, interest and penalty within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. This order was challenged by the appellant by filling an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if any such application is moved by the appellant, the same shall be decided within three weeks from the date of receipt of such application. 3. The appellant has thereafter filed the present application bearing No. 51285 /2018 with the following prayers; (a) Set aside/ Recall the prejudicial portion of the Final Order No. ST/A/571080/2017-CU(DB) dated 13.10.2017 passed by this Hon ble Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No 364/2010 to the extent that it directs the disposal of the Service Tax Appeal no. 364/2010 at paras 3 4 therein: (b) Restore the Service Tax Appeal No. 364/2010 titled Rishab Laboratores Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, Raipur to the record of this Hon ble Tribunal: (c) Recall/Modify the Miscellaneous Order No. ST/115/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent made to Section 35 (f) of the Act on 6 August, 2014 that requires an amount of 10 % of the amount appealed against to be deposited. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that the issue involved in the appeal, namely, as to whether the differential value of service, on which the service tax has been demanded, is reimbursable expenses received by the appellant from the principle has been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Intercontinental Consultant and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2018 (10) GSTL 401(SC)] and, therefore, the appellant has a good prima facia case. 6. Learned representative of the Department has, however, urged that it is for the appellant to substantiate his claim by placing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
