Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and whether the material placed made out a prima facie case on the demands relating to advance receipts, free supply materials, duplication of demand, and limitation.
Analysis: The Tribunal did not accept the contention that the activity was taxable only as works contract for the relevant period. However, it found prima facie merit in the grievance that the Commissioner had not recorded any finding on the specific plea that about Rs.81 lakhs had already been paid subsequent to audit objection, indicating possible duplication of demand. It also accepted prima facie that, in respect of two parties, the appellant had discharged duty liability including the value of free supply materials, while finding no sufficient basis for exclusion of such value in respect of the other parties. The plea of limitation was not found prima facie acceptable on the material shown.
Conclusion: The Tribunal granted partial relief by directing deposit of Rs.25,00,000 and staying recovery of the balance demand pending disposal of the appeal.