TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). - ST/508/2008 - 34/2009 - Dated:- 15-1-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri K. Parameswaran and Ms. Jamuna, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri V.P.C. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amounts:- (a) Differential Service tax of Rs. 14,03,283/- (b) Interest under Section 75 (Not Quantified) (c) Penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A; Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76; and twice the amount of tax involved, i.e. Rs. 28,06,566/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 2. The appellants are rendering services of Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Department of Revenue) No. 59/98-ST dated 16-10-1998, namely In the said notification, the following Explanation shall be inserted in the end, namely - "Explanation - Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the services provided by a practicing chartered accountant, a practicing company secretary or a practicing cost accountant which may fall in any other taxable services as defined in clause (90) of Section 65 of the said Act. Illustration :- The service provided by a practicing chartered accountant, a practicing company secretary or a practicing cost accountant in connection with the management of any organization in any manner or recruitment of manpower in any manner shall be deemed to be the taxable service prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were of the view that they would be entitled for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts on merits, they requested for more time. This request was ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order has been passed dismissing the appeal for failure to pre-deposit the entire amount. The prayer of the appellant is that the matter should be remanded; to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. 4. The learned SDR reiterated the impugned order. 5. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that prima facie the appellants have strong case on merits as the amendment to Notification in this case is not retrospective. The Chennai Bench also has passed an order in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, we are inclin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
